Skip to main content

Full text of "Gerald Massey - lectures"

See other formats


Gerald Massey's Lectures 



Directory of content 

Foreword 

Introduction 

The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ 

Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter 

The "Logia of the Lord" 

Gnostic and Historic Christianity 

The Hebrew and Other Creations 

In Reply to Professor A. H. Sayce 

The Devil of Darkness in the Light of Evolution 

Luniolatry. Ancient and Modern 

Greek Mythology and the God Apollo 

Man in Search of His Soul 

The Seven Souls of Man 

A Retort 

The Coming Religion 



Editted by webmaster meuser. awardspace . com ; also see www.theosophy.net 
and www.scribd.com/meuser 



FOREWORD 

Gerald Massey, a man of many talents, distinguished himself as a social reformer, a poet 
and an Egyptologist. His fame rested mainly on the six monumental volumes in which he 
dealt at length on the mythology and religion of Ancient Egypt, and on his poetry. 
Although he was a capable lecturer, the lectures were not widely circulated, and were 
privately printed in an obscure volume. It is timely that this valuable collection is once 
again presented to Massey's increasing public. 

Relatively little is known of Massey's career. His humble birth at Gamble Wharf, 
Hertfordshire, England in 1829 held scant promise for the future. His parents were 
illiterate—his father was a poorly paid canal boatman. His own early education was 
meager. Only occasionally was the young Massey able to attend the neighboring school, 
for which he paid one penny a week. From the age of eight he labored twelve hours a 
day. At first he found employment in a silk mill. When it was destroyed by fire, he 
worked as a straw-plaiter. Doubtless there were many such jobs until at fifteen he went to 
London as an errand boy. Later he was fortunate enough to become a haberdasher's clerk. 
It is evident that Massey improved his life at every opportunity. Not only did his 



positions become more responsible, but in his spare time he read literature, and was 
inspired to write poetry. He even composed a popular song, which was so well-received 
that it was exhibited in a London shop window. In passing the Editor of "The 
Athenaeum", London's most distinguished periodical, noticed and bought a copy. The 
song, "The People's Advent," caught the Editor's fancy to the extent that the composer's 
name—Gerald Massey— remained in his memory. 

A year later, his book of poetry readied for publication, Massey brought it with hope and 
humility to the Editor of "The Athenaeum." The Editor, recognizing the author's name as 
the composer of "The People's Advent," was predisposed to like the poems before 
reading them. He wrote a brilliant, laudatory review of the poetry. The book-sellers of 
London, impressed by the review ordered the book with no hesitation. In one day the first 
edition was sold out. 

Gerald Massey became increasingly interested in Egyptology. He studied the extensive 
Egyptian records housed in the British Museum. He eventually taught himself to decipher 
the hieroglyphics. Finally after many years of study he wrote a series of scholarly works 
on the Religion and Mythology of Ancient Egypt. In 1881 he published in two volumes 
"ABook of the Beginnings," in 1883 "The Natural Genesis" followed, and finally in 
1907 he published in two volumes "Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World,". 
Through those long years of devoted study at the British Museum, Massey enjoyed the 
friendship and wise counsel of Dr. Samuel Birch, an outstanding Egyptologist. He 
attracted a following of dedicated students, who later were privileged to assist in his 
research. Two of his most prominent co-workers were George St. Clair who authored 
"Creation Records Discovered in Egypt," and Dr. Albert Churchward, who wrote "The 
Origin and Evolution of the Human Race." 

When Massey lectured in America and Canada, he found himself surrounded with able 
students. Miss E. Valentia Straiton, author of "The Celestial Ship of the North," and Dr. 
Alvin Boyd Kuhn, who wrote extensively on comparative religion. Dr. Kuhn 
acknowledged that in Gerald Massey had been a great inspiration to him. In fact in his 
posthumous work, "A Rebirth for Christianity," Dr. Kuhn called attention to the great 
worth of Massey' s research on Christian origins, as follows: 

"With brilliant scholarship and insight he pierced Egypt's enigmatic scriptology, and 
documented the provenance of both Old and New Testament literature from remote 
Egyptian sources. He forced us to ask how the four Gospels of the Christian canon could 
be the biography of any Messianic personality living in the first Christian century, when 
he traced their texts back to Egyptian documents that must have been venerable even in 
3500 B.C. 

"We are faced with the inescapable realization that if Jesus actually lived in the flesh in 
the first century A.D., and if he had been able to read the documents of old Egypt, he 
would have been amazed to find his own biography already substantially written some 
four or five thousand years previously. Tertullian, Justin Martyr and other writers have 
noted that the leaders of the Christian movement confessed that many of their doctrines, 
rites, creeds and symbols were identical with Egyptian antetypes. The late outstanding 
American Egyptologist, James H. Breasted, found evidence of such similarities between 
the Old Testament book, Proverbs, and addresses to the Pharaoh of Egypt dating as far 
back as 3500 B.C. All this confirms Massey's conclusions." (pp. 39-40) 
Gerald Massey so impressed the novelist, George Eliot, that she made him the hero of 
one of her famous romances. Thus Massey became immortalized in literature as "Felix 
Holt the Radical." 

Among Massey's American friends and admirers was a prominent New York Journalist 
and publisher, D. M. Bernett. In the second edition of his "The World's Sages, Thinkers 
and Reformers" on page 967, Bernett says, 
"Gerald Massey is a warm-hearted, genial man, and as a companion and friend he has 



few superiors. His interests and incentives are decidedly in the direction of Science and 
Rationalism. He has many years been freed from the binding and blinding theological 
creeds and obligations. He regards priestcraft as one of the great evils which mankind for 
thousands of years have been compelled to endure and support; and regards it as one of 
the most important works that men of the present time can engage in to demolish the 
idols of the past dark ages; to liberate the mind from the dwarfing and blighting effect of 
pagan and Christian mythology and to dispense with the officious and expensive services 
of a designing, useless, aristocratic and wily priesthood. He most desires to see the 
human race advance in knowledge and truth and mental freedom, which science and 
philosophy imparts to the diligent investigator. He believes ignorance to be the Devil, 
Science the Savior of the world." 

For those who finish the reading of these lectures and desire a further acquaintance with 
the works of Gerald Massey, there are his greater works beginning with "Ancient Egypt, 
the Light of the World." 



INTRODUCTION 

Gerald Massey, though a poet, Shakespearian scholar, and renowned Egyptologist, is best 
remembered by his unswerving convictions. His research led him to the conclusion that 
in Africa alone could be found the origins of myths, mysteries, symbols, languages and 
religions. Egypt was the mouthpiece. 

He did not hesitate to undertake to prove that all Christendom were the dupes of 
delusions. His zeal caused him to challenge the scientists, the theologians, the 
philologists, the anthropologists and sociologists. However, he did not rest his case there. 
He was too much the honest scholar for that. Therefore, he presented to his peers the 
abundant evidence resulting from his immense amount of research, which had been sifted 
through the most reliable authorities. 

In these present lectures Gerald Massey renewed his contention that the gnosis of 
Christianity was primarily derived from Egypt on various lines of descent—Hebrew, 
Persian, Greek, Alexandrian, Essenian and Nazarene. These converged in Rome where 
the history was manufactured from identifiable matter recorded in the ancient Book of 
Wisdom. 

It was during this period that he delivered the lecture on GNOSTIC AND HISTORIC 
CHRISTIANITY. He clearly depicts the origin of Christianity and makes it unequivocal 
that it was not derived from Buddhism. Jesus spoke repeatedly about the Father. Massey 
said, "The Buddha is the veiled God unveiled, the unmanifested made manifest, but not 
by the line of descent from Father to Son. Buddha was begotten by his own becoming 
before the time of divine paternity." 

Long before man uttered a verbal prayer, he expressed himself by actions or gesturelanguage. 
Massey discussed this at length in MAN FN SEARCH OF HIS SOUL 
DURING FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS AND HOW HE FOUND IT. Present-day 
psychologists recognize gesture-language as an indication of man's true unexpressed 
attitudes, for unconsciously he assumes gestures revealing his thinking. The old cliche, 
"Actions speak louder than words," has come full circle and vindicated Massey. 
Massey had but one desire. He wanted to gain all the knowledge the past could afford 
him, and then to supplement it with all that is known in the present. He maintained it was 
impossible to understand the present without a profound knowledge of the past. Unless 
man comprehended the laws of evolution and past development, and of present survival, 
it was impossible to form an opinion that would be of value to anyone. With patience and 



determination he carried this out in all his writings. 

He had little patience with those who talked of the great occult secrets. He was convinced 
the so-called ancient mysteries were manufactured by pseudo-Esoterists and Occultists. 
The only interest Massey took in such matters was to determine how they had originated, 
to verify their supposed phenomena, and to ferret out their meaning. He insisted the need 
for mystery vanished with the coming of the printing press and public experimental 
research. It became a passion with him to publish the facts as he saw them, and then to 
distribute the knowledge widely. In THE SEVEN SOULS OF MAN, he said, "The 
modern manufacture of ancient mysteries is a great imposition, and sure to be found out. 
The mysteries called Christian ... I look upon them as the greatest imposition of all." 
His own meditation on facts of both abnormal or extraordinary nature which continued 
and were verified over the years, proved to him that Mind existed and operated invisibly. 
He did not trouble about "the other world" at all, for it was in this world that people 
needed assistance. Life to him was not worth living if something were not done to further 
its work. "It is only in helping others that we can truly help ourselves," said Mr. Massey 
in the lecture, THE DEVIL OF DARKNESS IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION. 
To Gerald Massey it was an unforgiveable pretense for the clergy to continue to preach 
that man was a fallen creature. He continually pointed out that man could not be saved 
through prayful intercession. Every advance made by science for humanity had been 
carried out through research and perseverance—not by praying to a jealous God. Massey 
proclaimed, "It is a sad farce for you to pray for God to work a miracle . . . when you are 
doing all you can to prevent it." 

Speaking of creation, he saw it as beginning with the first means of measuring and 
recording a cycle of time. In Genesis, the first day was measured by the morning and the 
evening. To the present day time continues to be measured by this identical method. 
Through years of observation Massey recorded the outcome of such statements as, 
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." He concluded that the meek did 
not inherit the earth and were not about to. Teachers had been woefully mistaken and 
unobserving. The death of Jesus could not save man from himself. Massey was adamant 
in pointing out that man was what he was as the result of what he had done. There was no 
dodging the law of cause and effect. 

One of Massey's greatest contributions is his lecture on THE COMING RELIGION. It is 
poignant with his sincerity. He put his own belief into every word. To him each person 
must do his own thinking and have absolute freedom of expression. He stressed that the 
new religion must have "sincerity of life, in place of pretended belief; a religion of 
science, in place of superstition." This religion will proclaim man's Ascent rather than his 
Fall. It will be a religion of fact in the present, not of mere faith for the future. The temple 
will be what it was intended to be—the human form rather than an edifice of brick and 
stone. It will be a religion of accomplishment, rather than of worship; and in place of the 
many creeds, it will be a religion of life. Above all it will be a joyous religion. To realize 
such a religion a man must be honest and courageous as was Gerald Massey himself. 
His final plea in THE COMING RELIGION was to urge man to bear in mind that the 
origin of evil in the moral domain was derived from ignorance. It was Hermes who said, 
"The wickedness of a soul is its ignorance." To this Gerald Massey fittingly added that 
after gaining the consciousness to recognize the right, then it is man's permissiveness that 
allows evil actions to take place. 
Sibyl Ferguson 



THE HISTORICAL JESUS AND MYTHICAL CHRIST. 

(All necessary references to the original authorities may be found in the Author's "Natural Genesis. ") 

In presenting my readers with some of the data which show that much of the Christian 
History was pre-extant as Egyptian Mythology. I have to ask you to bear in mind that the 
facts, like other foundations, have been buried out of sight for thousands of years in a 
hieroglyphical language, that was never really read by Greek or Roman, and could not be 
read until the lost clue was discovered by Champollion, almost the other day! In this way 
the original sources of our Mytholatry and Christology remained as hidden as those of the 
Nile, until the century in which we live. The mystical matter enshrouded in this language 
was sacredly entrusted to the keeping of the buried dead, who have faithfully preserved it 
as their Book of Life, which was placed beneath their pillows, or clasped to their bosoms, 
in their coffins and their tombs. 

Secondly, although I am able to read the hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based 
on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal rendering of the 
hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no 
loophole of escape that way. I lectured upon the subject of Jesus many years ago. At that 
time I did not know how we had been misled, or that the "Christian scheme" (as it is aptly 
called) in the New Testament is a fraud, founded on a fable in the Old! 
I then accepted the Canonical Gospels as containing a veritable human history, and 
assumed, as others do, that the history proved itself. Finding that Jesus, or Jehoshua Ben- 
Pandira, was an historical character, known to the Talmud, I made the common mistake 
of supposing that this proved the personal existence of the Jesus found portrayed in the 
Canonical Gospels. But after you have heard my story, and weighed the evidence now for 
the first time collected and presented to the public, you will not wonder that I should have 
changed my views, or that I should be impelled to tell the truth to others, as it now 
appears to myself; although I am only able to summarize here, in the briefest manner 
possible, a few of the facts that I have dealt with exhaustively elsewhere. 
The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a 
doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who 
is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was bora 
in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannaeus, notwithstanding 
the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod." That would be 
more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But 
it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably 
earlier even than the year 102 B.C., although the point is not of much consequence here. 
Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin— the fifth, reckoning from 
Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral 
law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben- 
Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 B.C. We may therefore reckon that 
he was not born later than 180-170 B.C., and that it could hardly be later than 100 B.C. 
when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in 
consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war 
in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannaeus, and consequently about 
105 B.C. If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will 
give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben- 
Pandira may have been born about the year 120 B.C. But twenty years are a matter of little 



moment here. 

According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, 
the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or 
Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. 
This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there 
exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the 
rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover). The year of his death, however, is 
not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much 
earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Janneeus reigned from the year 
106 to 79 B.C. He was succeeded in the government by his widow Salome, whom the 
Greeks called Alexandra, and who reigned for some nine years. Now the traditions, 
especially of the first "Toledoth Jehoshua," relate that the Queen of Jannaeus, and the 
mother of Hyrcanus, who must therefore be Salome, in spite of her being called by 
another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his 
wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his 
sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her; but that during her reign, which ended 
in the year 71 B.C., he was put to death. The Jewish writers and Rabbis with whom I have 
talked always deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the Gospels. 
"This," observes Rabbi Jechiels, "which has been related to Jehoshua Ben-Perachia and 
his pupil, contains no reference whatever to him whom the Christians honour as God!" 
Another Rabbi, Salman Zevi, produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jehoshua of 
the Talmud was not he who was afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth 
(and of the Canonical Gospels) was unknown to Justus, to the Jew of Celsus, and to 
Josephus, the supposed reference to him by the latter being an undoubted forgery. 
The "blasphemous writings of the Jews about Jesus," as Justin Martyr calls them, always 
refer to Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, and not to the Jesus of the Gospels. It is Ben-Pandira they 
mean when they say they have another and a truer account of the birth and life, the 
wonder-working and death of Jehoshua or Jesus. This repudiation is perfectly honest and 
soundly based. The only Jesus known to the Jews was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who had 
learnt the arts of magic in Egypt, and who was put to death by them as a sorcerer. This 
was likewise the only Jesus known to Celsus, the writer of the "True Logos," a work 
which the Christians managed to get rid of bodily, with so many other of the anti- 
Christian evidences. 

Celsus observes that he was not a pure Word, not a true Logos, but a man who had 
learned the arts of sorcery in Egypt. So, in the Clementines, it is in the character of Ben- 
Pandira that Jesus is said to rise again as the magician. But here is the conclusive fact: 
The Jews know nothing of Jesus, the Christ of the Gospels, as an historical character; and 
when the Christians of the fourth century trace his pedigree, by the hand of Epiphanius, 
they are forced to derive their Jesus from Pandira! Epiphanius gives the genealogy of the 
Canonical Jesus in this wise:— 
Jacob, called Pandira, Mary= Joseph— Cleopas, Jesus. 

This proves that in the fourth century the pedigree of Jesus was traced to Pandira, the 
father of that Jehoshua who was the pupil of Ben-Perachia, and who becomes one of the 
magicians in Egypt, and who was crucified as a magician on the eve of the Passover by 
the Jews, in the time of Queen Alexandra, who had ceased to reign in the year 70 B.C.— 
the Jesus, therefore, who lived and died more than a century too soon. 
Thus, the Jews do not identify Jehoshua Ben-Pandira with the Gospel Jesus, of whom 
they, his supposed contemporaries, know nothing, but protest against the assumption as 
an impossibility; whereas the Christians do identify their Jesus as the descendant of 
Pandira. It was he or nobody; yet he was neither the son of Joseph nor the Virgin Mary, 
nor was he crucified at Jerusalem. It is not the Jews, then, but the Christians, who fuse 
two supposed historic characters into one! There being but one history acknowledged or 



known on either side, it follows that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jehoshua of the 
Talmud, or is not at all, as a Person. This shifts the historic basis altogether; it antedates 
the human history by more than a hundred years, and it at once destroys the historic 
character of the Gospels, together with that of any other personal Jesus than Ben-Pandira. 
In short, the Jewish history of the matter will be found to corroborate the mythical. As 
Epiphanius knew of no other historical Jesus than the descendant of Pandira, it is possible 
that this is the Jesus whose tradition is reported by Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus was born in the early part of the second century, between 120 and 140 AD. He 
was Bishop of Lyons, France, and a personal acquaintance of Polycarp; and he repeats a 
tradition testified to by the elders, which he alleges was directly derived from John, the 
"disciple of the Lord," to the effect that Jesus was not crucified at 33 years of age, but 
that he passed through every age, and lived on to be an oldish man. Now, in accordance 
with the dates given, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been between 50 and 60 years of 
age when put to death, and his tradition alone furnishes a clue to the Nihilistic statement 
of Irenaeus. 

When the true tradition of Ben-Pandira is recovered, it shows that he was the sole 
historical Jesus who was hung on a tree by the Jews, not crucified in the Roman fashion, 
and authenticates the claim now to be made on behalf of the astronomical allegory to the 
dispensational Jesus, the Kronian Christ, the mythical Messiah of the Canonical Gospels, 
and the Jesus of Paul, who was not the carnalised Christ. For I hold that the Jesus of the 
"other Gospel," according to the Apostles Cephas and James, who was utterly repudiated 
by Paul, was none other than Ben-Pandira, the Nazarene, of whom James was a follower, 
according to a comment on him found in the Book Abodazura. Anyway, there are two 
Jesuses, or Jesus and the Christ, one of whom is repudiated by Paul. 
But Jehoshua, the son of Pandira, can never be converted into Jesus Christ, the son of a 
virgin mother, as an historic character. Nor can the dates given ever be reconciled with 
contemporary history. The historical Herod, who sought to slay the young child Jesus, is 
known to have died four years before the date of the Christian era, assigned for the birth 
of Jesus. 

So much for the historic Jesus. And now for the mythical Christ. Here we can tread on 
firmer ground. 

The mythical Messiah was always born of a Virgin Mother—a factor unknown in natural 
phenomena, and one that cannot be historical, one that can only be explained by means of 
the Mythos, and those conditions of primitive sociology which are mirrored in mythology 
and preserved in theology. The virgin mother has been represented in Egypt by the 
maiden Queen, Mut-em-ua, the future mother of Amenhept III. some 16 centuries B.C., 
who impersonated the eternal virgin that produced the eternal child. 
Four consecutive scenes reproduced in my book are found pourtrayed upon the innermost 
walls of the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Luxor, which was built by Amenhept III., a 
Pharaoh of the 17th dynasty. The first scene on the left hand shows the God Taht, the 
Lunar Mercury, the Annunciator of the Gods, in the act of hailing the Virgin Queen, and 
announcing to her that she is to give birth to the coming Son. In the next scene the God 
Kneph (in conjunction with Hathor) gives the new life. This is the Holy Ghost or Spirit 
that causes the Immaculate Conception, Kneph being the spirit by name in Egyptian. The 
natural effects are made apparent in the virgin's swelling form. 

Next the mother is seated on the mid-wife's stool, and the newborn child is supported in 
the hands of one of the nurses. The fourth scene is that of the Adoration. Here the child is 
enthroned, receiving homage from the Gods and gifts from men. Behind the deity Kneph, 
on the right, three spirits—the Three Magi, or Kings of the Legend, are kneeling and 
offering presents with their right hand, and life with their left. The child thus announced, 
incarnated, born, and worshipped, was the Pharaonic representative of the Aten Sun in 
Egypt, the God Adon of Syria, and Hebrew Adonai; the child-Christ of the Aten Cult; the 



miraculous conception of the ever- virgin mother, personated by Mut-em-ua, as mother of 
the "only one," and representative of the divine mother of the youthful Sun-God. 
These scenes, which were mythical in Egypt, have been copied or reproduced as 
historical in the Canonical Gospels, where they stand like four corner-stones to the 
Historic Structure, and prove that the foundations are mythical. 

Jesus was not only born of the mythical motherhood; his descent on the maternal side is 
traced in accordance with this origin of the mythical Christ. The virgin was also called 
the harlot, because she represented the pre-monogamic stage of intercourse; and Jesus 
descends from four forms of the harlot— Thamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba— each of 
whom is a form of the "stranger in Israel," and is not a Hebrew woman. Such history, 
however, does not show that illicit intercourse was the natural mode of the divine 
descent; nor does it imply unparalleled human profligacy. It only proves the Mythos. 
In human sociology the son of the mother preceded the father, as son of the woman who 
was a mother, but not a wife. This character is likewise claimed for Jesus, who is made to 
declare that he was earlier than Abraham, who was the typical Great Father of the Jews; 
whether considered to be mythical or historical. Jesus states emphatically that he existed 
before Abraham was. This is only possible to the mythical Christ, who preceded the 
father as son of the virgin mother; and we shall find it so throughout. All that is nonnatural 
and impossible as human history, is possible, natural and explicable as Mythos. 
It can be explained by the Mythos, because it originated in that which alone accounts for 
it. For it comes to this at last: the more hidden the meaning in the Gospel history, the 
more satisfactorily is it explained by the Mythos; and the more mystical the Christian 
doctrine, the more easily can it be proved to be mythical. 

The birth of Christ is astronomical. The birthday is determined by the full moon of 
Easter. This can only occur once every 19 years, as we have it illustrated by the Epact or 
Golden Number of the Prayer Book. Understand me! Jesus, the Christ, can only have a 
birthday, or resurrection, once in 19 years, in accordance with the Metonic Cycle, 
because his parents are the sun and moon; and those appear in the earliest known 
representation of the Man upon the Cross! This proves the astronomical and non-human 
nature of the birth itself, which is identical with that of the full moon of Easter in Egypt. 
Casini, the French Astronomer, has demonstrated the fact that the date assigned for the 
birth of the Christ is an Astronomical epoch in which the middle conjunction of the moon 
with the sun happened on the 24th March, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, at the 
meridian of Jerusalem, the very day of the middle equinox. The following day (the 25th) 
was the day of the Incarnation, according to Augustine, but the date of the Birth, 
according to Clement Alexander. For two birth days are assigned to Jesus by the 
Christian Fathers, one at the Winter Solstice, the other at the Vernal Equinox. These, 
which cannot both be historical, are based on the two birthdays of the double Horus in 
Egypt. Plutarch tells us that Isis was delivered of Horus, the child, about the time of the 
winter Solstice, and that the festival of the second or adult Horus followed the Vernal 
Equinox. Hence, the Solstice and spring Equinox were both assigned to the one birth of 
Jesus by the Christolators; and again, that which is impossible as human history is the 
natural fact in relation to the two Horuses, the dual form of the Solar God in Egypt. 
And here, in passing, we may point out the astronomical nature of the Crucifixion. The 
Gospel according to John brings on a tradition so different from that of the Synoptics as 
to invalidate the human history of both. The Synoptics say that Jesus was crucified on the 
15th of the month Nisan. John affirms that it was on the 14th of the month. This serious 
rift runs through the very foundation! As human history it cannot be explained. But there 
is an explanation possible, which, if accepted, proves the Mythos. The Crucifixion (or 
Crossing) was, and still is, determined by the full moon of Easter. This, in the lunar 
reckoning, would be on the 14th in the month of 28 days; in the solar month of 30 days it 
was reckoned to occur on the 15th of the month. Both unite, and the rift closes in proving 



the Crucifixion to have been Astronomical, just as it was in Egypt, where the two dates 
can be identified. 

Plutarch also tells us how the Mithraic Cult had been particularly established in Rome 
about the year 70 B.C. And Mithras was fabled as having been born in a cave. Wherever 
Mithras was worshipped the cave was consecrated as his birthplace. The cave can be 
identified, and the birth of the Messiah in that cave, no matter under what name he was 
born, can be definitely dated. The "Cave of Mithras" was the birthplace of the Sun in the 
Winter Solstice, when this occurred on the 25th of December in the sign of the Sea-Goat, 
with the Vernal Equinox in the sign of the Ram. Now the Akkadian name of the tenth 
month, that of the Sea-Goat, which answers roughly to our December, the tenth by name, 
is Abba Uddu, that is, the "Cave of Light;" the cave of re-birth for the Sun in the lowest 
depth at the Solstice, figured as the Cave of Light. This cave was continued as the 
birthplace of the Christ. You will find it in all the Gospels of the Infancy, and Justin 
Martyr says, "Christ was born in the Stable, and afterwards took refuge in the Cave." He 
likewise vouches for the fact that Christ was born on the same day that the Sun was reborn 
in Stabulo Augice, or, in the Stable of Augias. Now the cleansing of this Stable was 
the sixth labour of Herakles, his first being in the sign of the Lion; and Justin was right; 
the Stable and Cave are both figured in the same Celestial Sign. But mark this! The Cave 
was the birthplace of the Solar Messiah from the year 2410 to the year 255 B.C.; at which 
latter date the Solstice passed out of the Sea-Goat into the sign of the Archer; and no 
Messiah, whether called Mithras, Adon, Tammuz, Horus or Christ, could have been born 
in the Cave of Abba Uddu or the Stable of Augias on the 25th of December after the year 
255 B.C., therefore, Justin had nothing but the Mithraic tradition of the by-gone birthday 
to prove the birth of the Historical Christ 255 years later! 
In their mysteries the Sarraceni celebrated the Birth of the babe in the Cave or 
Subterranean Sanctuary, from which the Priest issued, and cried:— "The Virgin has 
brought forth: The Light is about to begin to grow again! "--on the Mother-night of the 
year. And the Sarraceni were not supporters of Historic Christianity. 
The birthplace of the Egyptian Messiah at the Vernal Equinox was figured in Apt, or 
Apta, the corner; but Apta is also the name of the Crib and the Manger; hence the Child 
born in Apta, was said to be born in a manger; and this Apta as Crib or Manger is the 
hieroglyphic sign of the Solar birthplace. Hence the Egyptians exhibited the Babe in the 
Crib or Manger in the streets of Alexandria. The birthplace was indicated by the colure of 
the Equinox, as it passed from sign to sign. It was also pointed out by the Star in the East. 
When the birthplace was in the sign of the Bull, Orion was the Star that rose in the East to 
tell where the young Sun-God was re-born. Hence it is called the "Star of Horus." That 
was then the Star of the "Three Kings" who greeted the Babe; for the "Three Kings" is 
still a name of the three stars in Orion's Belt. Here we learn that the legend of the "Three 
Kings" is at least 6,000 years old. 

In the course of Precession, about 255 B.C., the vernal birthplace passed into the sign of 
the Fishes, and the Messiah who had been represented for 2155 years by the Ram or 
Lamb, and previously for other 2155 years by the Apis Bull, was now imaged as the Fish, 
or the "Fish-man," called Ichthys in Greek. The original Fish-man— the An of Egypt, and 
the Oan of Chaldea— probably dates from the previous cycle of precession, or 26,000 
years earlier; and about 255 B.C., the Messiah, as the Fish-man, was to come up once 
more as the Manifestor from the celestial waters. The coming Messiah is called Dag, the 
Fish, in the Talmud; and the Jews at one time connected his coming with some 
conjunction, or occurrence, in the sign of the Fishes! This shows the Jews were not only 
in possession of the astronomical allegory, but also of the tradition by which it could be 
interpreted. It was the Mythical and Kronian Messiah alone who was, or could be, the 
subject of prophecy that might be fulfilled— prophecy that was fulfilled as it is in the 
Book of Revelation— when the Equinox entered, the cross was re-erected, and the 



foundations of a new heaven were laid in the sign of the Ram, 2410 B.C.; and, again, 
when the Equinox entered the sign of the Fishes, 255 B.C. Prophecy that will be again 
fulfilled when the Equinox enters the sign of the Waterman about the end of this century, 
to which the Samaritans are still looking forward for the coming of their Messiah, who 
has not yet arrived for them. The Christians alone ate the oyster; the Jews and Samaritans 
only got an equal share of the empty shells! The uninstructed Jews, the idiotai, at one 
time thought the prophecy which was astronomical, and solely related to the cycles of 
time, was to have its fulfilment in human history. But they found out their error, and 
bequeathed it unexplained to the still more ignorant Christians. The same tradition of the 
Coming One is extant amongst the Millenarians and Adventists, as amongst the Moslems. 
It is the tradition of El-Mahdi, the prophet who is to come in the last days of the world to 
conquer all the world, and who was lately descending the Soudan with the old 
announcement the "Day of the Lord is at hand," which shows that the astronomical 
allegory has left some relics of the true tradition among the Arabs, who were at one time 
learned in astronomical lore. 

The Messiah, as the Fish-man, is foreseen by Esdras ascending out of the sea as the 
"same whom God the highest hath kept a great season, which by his own self shall 
deliver the creature." The ancient Fish-man only came up out of the sea to converse with 
men and teach them in the daytime. "When the sun set," says Berosus, "it was the custom 
of this Being to plunge again into the sea, and abide all night in the deep." So the man 
foreseen by Esdras is only visible by day. 

As it is said, "E'en so can no man upon earth see my son, or those that be with him, but in 
the daytime." This is parodied or fulfilled in the account of Ichthys, the Fish, the Christ 
who instructs men by day, but retires to the lake of Galilee, where he demonstrates his 
solar nature by walking the waters at night, or at the dawn of day. 
We are told that his disciples being on board a ship, "when even was come, in the fourth 
watch of the night, Jesus went unto them walking upon the sea." Now the fourth watch 
began at three o'clock, and ended at six o'clock. Therefore, this was about the proper time 
for a solar God to appear walking upon the waters, or coming up out of them as the 
Oannes. Oannes is said to have taken no food whilst he was with men: "In the daytime he 
used to converse with men, but took no food at that season." So Jesus, when his disciples 
prayed him, saying "Master, eat," said unto them, "I have meat to eat that you know not 
of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me." 

This is the perfect likeness of the character of Oannes, who took no food, but whose time 
was wholly spent in teaching men. Moreover, the mythical Fish-man is made to identify 
himself. When the Pharisees sought a "sign from heaven," Jesus said, "There shall no 
sign be given but the sign of Jonas. For as Jonas became a sign unto the Ninevites, so 
shall also the son of man be to this generation." 

The sign of Jonas is that of the Oan, or Fish-man of Nineveh, whether we take it direct 
from the monuments, or from the Hebrew history of Jonah, or from the Zodiac. 
The voice of the secret wisdom here says truly that those who are looking for signs, can 
have no other than that of the returning Fish-man, Ichthys, Oannes, or Jonah: and 
assuredly, there was no other sign or date—than those of Ichthys, the Fish who was reborn 
of the fish-goddess, Atergatis, in the sign of the Fishes, 255 B.C. After whom the 
primitive Christians were called little fishes, or Pisciculi. 

This date of 255 B.C. was the true day of birth, or rather of re-birth for the celestial Christ, 
and there was no valid reason for changing the time of the world. 
The Gospels contain a confused and confusing record of early Christian belief: things 
most truly believed (Luke) concerning certain mythical matters, which were ignorantly 
mistaken for human and historical. The Jesus of our Gospels is but little of a human 
reality, in spite of all attempts to naturalize the Mythical Christ, and make the story look 
rational. 



The Christian religion was not founded on a man, but on a divinity; that is, a mythical 
character. So far from being derived from the model man, the typical Christ was made up 
from the features of various Gods, after a fashion somewhat like those "pictorial 
averages" portrayed by Mr. Galton, in which the traits of several persons are 
photographed and fused in a portrait of a dozen different persons, merged into one that is 
not anybody. And as fast as the composite Christ falls to pieces, each feature is claimed, 
each character is gathered up by the original owner, as with the grasp of gravitation. 
It is not I that deny the divinity of Jesus the Christ; I assert it! He never was, and never 
could be, any other than a divinity; that is, a character non-human, and entirely mythical, 
who had been the pagan divinity of various pagan myths, that had been pagan during 
thousands of years before our Era. 

Nothing is more certain, according to honest evidence, than that the Christian scheme of 
redemption is founded on a fable misinterpreted; that the prophecy of fulfillment was 
solely astronomical, and the Coming One as the Christ who came in the end of an age, or 
of the world, was but a metaphorical figure, a type of time, from the first, which never 
could take form in historic personality, any more than Time in Person could come out of 
a clock-case when the hour strikes; that no Jesus could become a Nazarene by being born 
at, or taken to, Nazareth; and that the history in our Gospels is from beginning to end the 
identifiable story of the Sun-God, and the Gnostic Christ who never could be made flesh. 
When we did not know the one it was possible to believe the other; but when once we 
truly know, then the false belief is no longer possible. 

The mythical Messiah was Horus in the Osirian Mythos; Har-Khuti in the Sut- 
Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the 
Gospels is an amalgam of all these characters. 

The Christ is the Good Shepherd! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Lamb of God! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Bread of Life! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Truth and the Life! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Fan-bearer! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Lord! 

So was Horus. 

Christ is the Way and the Door of Life! 

Horus was the path by which they travelled out of the Sepulchre. He is the God whose 
name is written with the hieroglyphic sign of the Road or Way. 

Jesus is he that should come; and Iu, the root of the name in Egyptian, means "to come." 
Iu-em-hept, as the Su, the Son of Arum, or of Ptah, was the "Ever-Coming One," who is 
always pourtrayed as the marching youngster, in the act and attitude of coming. Horus 
included both sexes. The Child (or the soul) is of either sex, and potentially, of both. 
Hence the hermaphrodital Deity; and Jesus, in Revelation, is the Young Man who has the 
female paps. 

Iu-em-hept signifies he who comes with peace. This is the character in which Jesus is 
announced by the Angels! And when Jesus comes to his disciples after the resurrection it 
is as the bringer of peace. "Learn of me and ye shall find rest," says the Christ. Khunsu- 
Nefer-Hept is the Good Rest, Peace in Person! The Egyptian Jesus, Iu-em-Hept, was the 
second Arum; Paul's Jesus is the second Adam. In one rendition of John's Gospel, instead 



of the "only-begotten Son of God," a variant reading gives the "only-begotten God," 

which has been declared an impossible rendering. But the "only-begotten God" was an 

especial type in Egyptian Mythology, and the phrase re-identifies the divinity whose 

emblem is the beetle. Hor-Apollo says, "To denote the only-begotten or a father, the 

Egyptians delineate a scarabaeus! 

By this they symbolize an only-begotten, because the creature is self-produced, being 

unconceived by a female." Now the youthful manifestor of the Beetle-God was this Iuem- 

hept, the Egyptian Jesus. The very phraseology of John is common to the 

Inscriptions, which tell of him who was the Beginner of Becoming from the first, and 

who made all things, but who himself was not made. I quote verbatim. And not only was 

the Beetle-God continued in the "only-begotten God"; the beetle-type was also brought 

on as a symbol of the Christ. Ambrose and Augustine, amongst the Christian Fathers, 

identified Jesus with, and as, the "good Scarabaeus," which further identifies the Jesus of 

John's Gospel with the Jesus of Egypt, who was the Ever-Coming One, and the Bringer 

of Peace, whom I have elsewhere shown to be the Jesus to whom the Book of 

Ecclesiasticus is inscribed, and ascribed in the Apocrypha. 

In accordance with this continuation of the Kamite symbols, it was also maintained by 

some sectaries that Jesus was a potter, and not a carpenter; and the fact is that this onlybegotten 

Beetle-God, who is portrayed sitting at the potter's wheel forming the Egg, or 

shaping the vase-symbol of creation, was the Potter personified, as well as the onlybegotten 

God in Egypt. 

The character and teachings of the Canonical Christ are composed of contradictions 

which cannot be harmonized as those of a human being, whereas they are always true to 

the Mythos. 

He is the Prince of Peace, and yet he asserts that he came not to bring peace: "I came not 

to send peace, but a sword," and not only is Iu-em-hept the Bringer of Peace by name in 

one character; he is the Sword personified in the other. In this he says, "I am the living 

image of Atum, proceeding from him as a sword." Both characters belong to the mythical 

Messiah in the Ritual, who also calls himself the "Great Disturber," and the "Great 

Tranquilizer" —the "God Contention," and the "God Peace." The Christ of the Canonical 

Gospels has several prototypes, and sometimes the copy is derived or the trait is caught 

from one original, and sometimes from the other. The Christ of Luke's Gospel has a 

character entirely distinct from that of John's Gospel. Here he is the Great Exorciser, and 

caster-out of demons. John's Gospel contains no case of possession or obsession: no 

certain man who "had devils this long time"; no child possessed with a devil; no blind 

and dumb man possessed with a devil. 

Other miracles are performed by the Christ of John, but not these; because John's is a 

different type of the Christ. And the original of the Great Healer in Luke's Gospel may be 

found in the God Khunsu, who was the Divine Healer, the supreme one amongst all the 

other healers and saviours, especially as the caster-out of demons, and the expeller of 

possessing spirits. He is called in the texts the "Great God, the driver away of 

possession." 

In the Stele of the "Possessed Princess," this God in his effigy is sent for by the chief of 

Bakhten, that he may come and cast out a possessing spirit from the king's daughter, who 

has an evil movement in her limbs. The demon recognizes the divinity just as the devil 

recognizes Jesus, the expeller of evil spirits. Also the God Khunsu is Lord over the pig— a 

type of Sut. He is portrayed in the disk of the full moon of Easter, in the act of offering 

the pig as a sacrifice. Moreover, in the judgment scenes, when the wicked spirits are 

condemned and sent back into the abyss, their mode of return to the lake of primordial 

matter is by entering the bodies of swine. Says Horus to the Gods, speaking of the 

condemned one: "When I sent him to his place he went, and he has been transformed into 

a black pig." So when the Exorcist in Luke's Gospel casts out Legion, the devils ask 



permission of the Lord of the pig to be allowed to enter the swine, and he gives them 
leave. This, and much more that might be adduced, tends to differentiate the Christ of 
Luke, and to identify him with Khunsu, rather than with Iu-em-hept, the Egyptian Jesus, 
who is reproduced in the Gospel according to John. In this way it can be proved that the 
history of Christ in the Gospels is one long and complete catalogue of likenesses to the 
Mythical Messiah, the Solar or Luni-Solar God. 

The "Litany of Ra," for example, is addressed to the Sun-God in a variety of characters, 
many of which are assigned to the Christ of the Gospels. Ra is the Supreme Power, the 
Beetle that rests in the Empyrean, who is born as his own son. This, as already said, is the 
God in John's Gospel, who says:~"I and the Father are one," and who is the father born 
as his own son; for he says, in knowing and seeing the son, "from henceforth ye know 
him and have seen him"; i.e., the Father. 

Ra is designated the "Soul that speaks." Christ is the Word. Ra is the destroyer of venom. 
Jesus says:— "In my name they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it 
shall not hurt them." In one character Ra is the outcast. So Jesus had not where to lay his 
head. 

Ra is the "timid one who sheds tears in the form of the Afflicted." He is called Remi, the 
Weeper. This weeping God passes through "Rem-Rem," the place of weeping, and there 
conquers on behalf of his followers. In the Ritual the God says:— "I have desolated the 
place of Rem-Rem." This character is sustained by Jesus in the mourning over Jerusalem 
that was to be desolated. The words of John, "Jesus wept," are like a carven statue of the 
"Afflicted One," as Remi, the Weeper. Ra is also the God who "makes the mummy come 
forth." Jesus makes the mummy come forth in the shape of Lazarus; and in the Roman 
Catacombs the risen Lazarus is not only represented as a mummy, but is an Egyptian 
mummy which has been eviscerated and swathed for the eternal abode. Ra says to the 
mummy: "Come forth!" and Jesus cries: "Lazarus, come forth!" Ra manifests as "the 
burning one, he who sends destruction," or "sends his fire into the place of destruction." 
"He sends fire upon the rebels," his form is that of the "God of the furnace." Christ also 
comes in the person of this "burning one"; the sender of destruction by fire. He is 
proclaimed by Matthew to be the Baptiser with fire. He says, "I am come to send fire on 
the earth." 

He is portrayed as "God of the furnace," which shall "burn up the chaff with 
unquenchable fire." He is to cast the rebellious into a "furnace of fire," and send the 
condemned ones into everlasting fire. All this was natural when applied to the Solar-God, 
and it is supposed to become supernatural when misapplied to a supposed human being to 
whom it never could apply. The Solar fire was the primary African fount of theological 
hell-fire and hell. 

The "Litany" of Ra collects the manifold characters that make up the total God (termed 
Teb-temt), and the Gospels have gathered up the mythical remains; thus the result is in 
each case identical, or entirely similar. From beginning to end the Canonical Gospels 
contain the Drama of the Mysteries of the Luni-Solar God, narrated as a human history. 
The scene on the Mount of Transfiguration is obviously derived from the ascent of Osiris 
into the Mount of Transfiguration in the Moon. The sixth day was celebrated as that of 
the change and transformation of the Solar God in the lunar orb, which he re-entered on 
that day as the regenerator of its light. With this we may compare the statement made by 
Matthew, that "after six days Jesus went up into a high mountain apart, and he was 
transfigured, and his face did shine as the sun (of course!), and his garments became 
white as the light. " 

In Egypt the year began soon after the Summer Solstice, when the sun descended from its 
midsummer height, lost its force, and lessened in its size. This represented Osiris, who 
was born of the Virgin Mother as the child Horus, the diminished infantile sun of 
Autumn; the suffering, wounded, bleeding Messiah, as he was represented. He descended 



into hell, or hades, where he was transformed into the virile Horus, and rose again as the 
sun of the resurrection at Easter. In these two characters of Horus on the two horizons, 
Osiris furnished the dual type for the Canonical Christ, which shows very satisfactorily 
HOW the mythical prescribes the boundaries beyond which the historical does not, dare 
not, go. The first was the child Horus, who always remained a child. In Egypt the boy or 
girl wore the Horus-lock of childhood until 12 years of age. Thus childhood ended about 
the twelfth year. But although adultship was then entered upon by the youth, and the 
transformation of the boy into manhood began, the full adultship was not attained until 30 
years of age. The man of 30 years was the typical adult. The age of adultship was 30 
years, as it was in Rome under Lex Pappia. The hommefait is the man whose years are 
triaded by tens, and who is Khemt. As with the man, so it is with the God; and the second 
Horus, the same God in his second character, is the Khemt or Khem-Horus, the typical 
adult of 30 years. The God up to twelve years was Horus, the child of Isis, the mother's 
child, the weakling. The virile Horus (the sun in its vernal strength), the adult of 30 years, 
was representative of the Fatherhood, and this Horus is the anointed son of Osiris. These 
two characters of Horus the child, and Horus the adult of 30 years, are reproduced in the 
only two phases of the life of Jesus in the Gospels. John furnishes no historic data for the 
time when the Word was incarnated and became flesh; nor for the childhood of Jesus; nor 
for the transformation into the Messiah. But Luke tells us that the child of twelve years 
was the wonderful youth, and that he increased in wisdom and stature. This is the length 
of years assigned to Horus the child; and this phase of the child-Christ's life is followed 
by the baptism and anointing, the descent of the pubescent spirit with the consecration of 
the Messiah in Jordan, when Jesus "began to be about 30 years of age. " 
The earliest anointing was the consecration of puberty; and here at the full age of the 
typical adult, the Christ, who was previously a child, the child of the Virgin Mother, is 
suddenly made into the Messiah, as the Lord's anointed. And just as the second Horus 
was regenerated, and this time begotten of the father, so in the transformation scene of 
the baptism in Jordan, the father authenticates the change into full adultship, with the 
voice from heaven saying:— "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased;" the 
spirit of pubescence, or the Ruach, being represented by the descending dove, called the 
spirit of God. Thus from the time when the child-Christ was about twelve years of age, 
until that of the typical hommefait of Egypt, which was the age assigned to Horus when 
he became the adult God, there is no history. This is in exact accordance with the Kamite 
allegory of the double-Horus. And the Mythos alone will account for the chasm which is 
wide and deep enough to engulf a supposed history of 18 years. Childhood cannot be 
carried beyond the 12th year, and the child-Horus always remained a child; just as the 
child-Christ does in Italy, and in German folk-tales. The mythical record founded on 
nature went no further, and there the history consequently halts within the prescribed 
limits, to rebegin with the anointed and regenerated Christ at the age of Khem-Horus, the 
adult of 30 years. 

And these two characters of Horus necessitated a double form of the mother, who divides 
into the two divine sisters, Isis and Nephthys. Jesus also was bi-mater, or dual -mothered; 
and the two sisters reappear in the Gospels as the two Marys, both of whom are the 
mothers of Jesus. This again, which is impossible as human history, is perfect according 
to the Mythos that explains it. 

As the child-Horus, Osiris comes down to earth; he enters matter, and becomes mortal. 
He is born like the Logos, or "as a Word." His father is Seb, the earth, whose consort is 
Nu, the heaven, one of whose names is MERI, the Lady of Heaven; and these two are the 
prototypes of Joseph and Mary. He is said to cross the earth a substitute, and to suffer 
vicariously as the Saviour, Redeemer, and Justifier of men. In these two characters there 
was constant conflict between Osiris and Typhon, the Evil Power, or Horus and Sut, the 
Egyptian Satan. At the Autumn Equinox, the devil of darkness began to dominate; this 



was the Egyptian Judas, who betrayed Osiris to his death at the last supper. On the day of 
the Great Battle at the Vernal Equinox, Osiris conquered as the ascending God, the Lord 
of the growing light. Both these struggles are pourtrayed in the Gospels. In the one Jesus 
is betrayed to his death by Judas; in the other he rises superior to Satan. The latter conflict 
followed immediately after the baptism. In this way:-- When the sun was half-way round, 
from the Lion sign, it crossed the River of the Waterman, the Egyptian Iarutana, Hebrew 
Jordan, Greek Eridanus. In this water the baptism occurred, and the transformation of the 
child-Horus into the virile adult, the conqueror of the evil power, took place. Horus 
becomes hawk-headed, just where the dove ascended and abode on Jesus. Both birds 
represented the virile soul that constituted the anointed one at puberty. By this added 
power Horus vanquished Sut, and Jesus overcame Satan. Both the baptism and the 
contest are referred to in the Ritual. "I am washed with the same water in which the Good 
Opener (Un-Nefer) washes when he disputes with Satan, that justification should be 
made to Un-Nefer, the Word made Truth," or the Word that is Law. 
The scene between the Christ and the Woman at the Well may likewise be found in the 
Ritual. Here the woman is the lady with the long hair, that is Nu, the consort of Seb— and 
the five husbands can be paralleled by her five star-gods born of Seb. Osiris drinks out of 
the well "to take away his thirst." He also says: "I am creating the water. I make way in 
the valley, in the Pool of the Great One. Make-road (or road-maker) expresses what I 
am." "I am the Path by which they traverse out of the sepulchre of Osiris." 
So the Messiah reveals himself as the source of living water, "that springeth up unto 
Everlasting Life." Later on he says, "I am the way, the truth, the life." "I am creating the 
water, discriminating the seat," says Horus. Jesus says, "The hour cometh when ye shall 
neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father." Jesus claims that this 
well of life was given to him by the Father. In the Ritual it says, "He is thine, O Osiris! A 
well, or flow, comes out of thy mouth to him!" Also, the paternal source is acknowledged 
in another text. "I am the Father, inundating when there is thirst, guarding the water. 
Behold me at it." Moreover, in another chapter the well of living water becomes the Pool 
of Peace. The speaker says, "The well has come through me. I wash in the Pool of 
Peace." 

In Hebrew, the Pool of Peace is the Pool of Salem, or Siloam. And here, not only is the 
pool described at which the Osirified are made pure and healed; not only does the Angel 
or God descend to the waters—the "certain times" are actually dated. "The Gods of the 
pure waters are there on the fourth hour of the night, and the eighth hour of the day, 
saying, 'Pass away hence,' to him who has been cured." 

An epitome of a considerable portion of John's Gospel may be found in another chapter 
of the Ritual--" Ye Gods come to be my servants, I am the son of your Lord. Ye are mine 
through my Father, who gave you to me. I have been among the servants of Hathor or 
Meri. I have been washed by thee, O attendant!" Compare the washing of Jesus' feet by 
Marry. 

The Osiris exclaims, "I have welcomed the chief spirits in the service of the Lord of 
things! I am the Lord of the fields when they are white," i.e., for the reapers and the 
harvest. So the Christ now says to the disciples, "Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your 
eyes and look on the fields, that are white already unto the harvest." 
"Then said he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few. 
Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that he send forth labourers into his harvest. 
And he called unto him his twelve disciples." Now, if we turn to the Egyptian "Book of 
Hades," the harvest, the Lord of the harvest, and the reapers of the harvest are all 
portrayed: the twelve are also there. In one scene they are preceded by a God leaning on a 
staff, who is designated the Master of Joy— a surname of the Messiah Horus when 
assimilated to the Soli-Lunar Khunsu; the twelve are "they who labour at the harvest in 
the plains of Neter-Kar." A bearer of a sickle shows the inscription: "These are the 



Reapers." The twelve are divided into two groups of five and seven—the original seven of 
the Aahenru; these seven are the reapers. The other five are bending towards an 
enormous ear of corn, the image of the harvest, ripe and ready for the sickles of the 
seven. The total twelve are called the "Happy Ones," the bearers of food. Another title of 
the twelve is that of the "Just Ones." The God says to the reapers, "Take your sickles! 
Reap your grain! Honour to you, reapers." Offerings are made to them on earth, as 
bearers of sickles in the fields of Hades. On the other hand, the tares or the wicked are to 
be cast out and destroyed for ever. These twelve are the apostles in their Egyptian phase. 
In the chapters on "Celestial Diet" in the Ritual, Osiris eats under the sycamore tree of 
Hathor. He says, "Let him come from the earth. Thou hast brought these seven loaves for 
me to live by, bringing the bread that Horus (the Christ) makes. Thou hast placed, thou 
hast eaten rations. Let him call to the Gods for them, or the Gods come with them to 
him." 

This is reproduced as miracle in the Gospels, performed when the multitude were fed 
upon seven loaves. The seven loaves are found here, together with the calling upon the 
Gods, or working the miracle of multiplying the bread. 
In the next chapter there is a scene of eating and drinking. The speaker, who 
impersonates the Lord, says:— "I am the Lord of Bread in Annu. My bread at the heaven 
was that of Ra; my bread on earth was that of Seb." The seven loaves represent the bread 
of Ra. Elsewhere the number prescribed to be set on one table, as an offering, is five 
loaves, these are also carried on the heads of five different persons in the scenes of the 
under- world. Five loaves are the bread of Seb. Thus five loaves represent the bread of 
earth, and seven the bread of heaven. Both five and seven are sacred regulation numbers 
in the Egyptian Ritual. And in the Gospel of Matthew the miracles are wrought with five 
loaves in the one case, and seven in the other, when the multitudes are fed on celestial 
diet. This will explain the two different numbers in one and the same Gospel miracle. In 
the Canonical narrative there is a lad with five barley loaves and two fishes. In the next 
chapter of the Ritual we possibly meet with the lad himself, as the miracle-worker says:— 
"I have given breath to the said youth." 

The Gnostics asserted truly that celestial persons and celestial scenes had been transferred 
to earth in our Gospels; and it is only within the Pleroma (the heaven) or in the Zodiac 
that we can at times identify the originals of both. And it is there we must look for the 
"two fishes." 

As the latest form of the Manifestor was in the heaven of the twelve signs, that probably 
determined the number of twelve basketsful of food remaining when the multitude had all 
been fed. "They that ate the loaves were five thousand men;" and five thousand was the 
exact number of the Celestials or Gods in the Assyrian Paradise, before the revolt and fall 
from heaven. The scene of the miracle of the loaves and fishes is followed by an attempt 
to take Jesus by force, but he withdraws himself; and this is succeeded by the miracle of 
his walking on the waters, and conquering the wind and waves. So is it in the Ritual. 
Chap. 57 is that of the breath prevailing over the water in Hades. The speaker, having to 
cross over, says: "O Hapi! let the Osiris prevail over the waters, like as the Osiris 
prevailed against the taking by stealth, the night of the great struggle." The Solar God 
was betrayed to his death by the Egyptian Judas, on the "night of the taking by stealth," 
which was the night of the last supper. The God is "waylaid by the conspirators, who 
have watched very much." They are said to smell him out "by the eating of his bread." So 
the Christ is waylaid by Judas, who "knew the place, for Jesus often resorted thither," and 
by the Jews who had long watched to take him. 

The smelling of Osiris by the eating of his bread is remarkably rendered by John at the 
eating of the last supper. The Ritual has it:— "They smell Osiris by the eating of his bread, 
transporting the evil of Osiris." 
"And when he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas Iscariot, and after the sop Satan 



entered into him." Then said Jesus to him into whom the evil or devil had been 
transported, "That thou doest, do quickly." Osiris was the same, beseeching burial. Here 
it is demonstrable that the non-historical Herod is a form of the Apophis Serpent, called 
the enemy of the Sun. In Syriac, Herod is a red dragon. Herod, in Hebrew, signifies a 
terror. Heru (Eg.) is to terrify, and Herrut (Eg.) is the Snake, the typical reptile. The blood 
of the divine victim that is poured forth by the Apophis Serpent at the sixth hour, on "the 
night of smiting the profane," is literally shed by Herod, as the Herrut or Typhonian 
Serpent. 

The speaker, in the Ritual asks: "Who art thou then, Lord of the Silent Body? I have 
come to see him who is in the serpent, eye to eye, and face to face." "Lord of the Silent 
Body" is a title of the Osiris. "Who art thou then, Lord of the Silent Body?" is asked and 
left unanswered. This character is also assigned to the Christ. The High Priest said unto 
him, "Answerest thou nothing?" "But Jesus held his peace." Herod questioned him in 
many words, but he answered him nothing. He acts the prescribed character of "Lord of 
the Silent Body." 

The transaction in the sixth hour of the night of the Crucifixion is expressly inexplicable. 
In the Gospel we read: --"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land 
unto the ninth hour." The sixth hour being midnight, that shows the solar nature of the 
mystery, which has been transferred to the sixth hour of the day in the Gospel. 
It is in the seventh hour the mortal struggle takes place between the Osiris and the deadly 
Apophis, or the great serpent, Haber, 450 cubits long, that fills the whole heaven with its 
vast enveloping folds. The name of this seventh hour is "that which wounds the serpent 
Haber." In this conflict with the evil power thus portrayed the Sun-God is designated the 
"Conqueror of the Grave," and is said to make his advance through the influence of Isis, 
who aids him in repelling the serpent or devil of darkness. In the Gospel, Christ is 
likewise set forth in the supreme struggle as "Conqueror of the Grave," for "the graves 
were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose;" and Mary represents Isis, 
the mother, at the cross. It is said of the great serpent, "There are those on earth who do 
not drink of the waters of this serpent, Haber," which may be paralleled with the refusal 
of the Christ to drink of the vinegar mingled with gall. 

When the God has overcome the Apophis Serpent, his old nightly, annual, and eternal 
enemy, he exclaims, "I come! I have made my way! I have come like the sun, through the 
gate of the one who likes to deceive and destroy, otherwise called the 'viper.' I have made 
my way! I have bruised the serpent, I have passed." 

But the more express representation in the mysteries was that of the annual sun as the 
Elder Horus, or Atum. As Julius Firmicus says: "In the solemn celebration of the 
mysteries, all things in order had to be done which the youth either did or suffered in his 
death." 

Diodorus Siculus rightly identified the "whole fable of the underworld," that was 
dramatised in Greece, as having been copied "from the ceremonies of the Egyptian 
funerals," and so brought on from Egypt into Greece and Rome. One part of this mystery 
was the portrayal of the suffering Sun-God in a feminine phase. When the suffering sun 
was ailing and ill, he became female, such being a primitive mode of expression. Luke 
describes the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane as being in a great agony, "and his sweat 
was, as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground." This experience the Gnostics 
identified with the suffering of their own hemorrhoidal Sophia, whose passion is the 
original of that which is celebrated during Passion week, the "week of weeping in Abtu," 
and which constitutes the fundamental mystery of the Rosy Cross, and the Rose of 
Silence. 

In this agony and bloody sweat the Christ simply fulfils the character of Osiris Tesh- 
Tesh, the red sun, the Sun-God that suffers his agony and bloody sweat in Smen, whence 
Gethsmen, or Gethsemane. Tesh means the bleeding, red, gory, separate, cut, and 



wounded; tesh-tesh is the inert form of the God whose suffering, like that of Adonis, was 

represented as feminine, which alone reaches a natural origin for the type. He was also 

called Ans-Ra, or the sun bound up in linen. 

So natural were the primitive mysteries! 

My attention has just been called to a passage in Lycophron, who lived under Ptolemy 

Philadelphus between 3 10 and 246 B.C. In this Heracles is referred to as 

"Thatthree-nighted lion, whom of old 
Triton's fierce dog with furious jaw devoured, 
Within whose bowels, tearing of his liver, 
He rolled, burning with heat, though without fire, 
His head with drops of sweat bedewed all o'er." 

This describes the God suffering his agony and sweat, which is called the "bloody flux" 
of Osiris. Here the nights are three in number. So the Son of Man was to be three nights 
as well as three days in the "heart of the earth." In the Gospels this prophecy is not 
fulfilled; but if we include the night of the bloody sweat, we have the necessary three 
nights, and the Mythos becomes perfect. In this phase the suffering Sun was the Red Sun, 
whence the typical Red Lion. 

As Arum, the red sun is described as setting from the Land of Life in all the colours of 
crimson, or Pant, the red pool. This clothing of colours is represented as a "gorgeous 
robe" by Luke; a purple robe by Mark; and a robe of scarlet by Matthew. As he goes 
down at the Autumn Equinox, he is the crucified. His mother, Nu, or Meri, the heaven, 
seeing her son, the Lord of Terror, greatest of the terrible, setting from the Land of Life, 
with his hands drooping, she becomes obscure, and there is great darkness over all the 
land, as at the crucifixion described by Matthew, in which the passing of the Lord of 
Terror is rendered by the terrible or "loud cry" of the Synoptic version. The Sun-God 
causes the dead, or those in the earth, to live as he passes down into the under-world, 
because, as he entered the earth, the tombs were opened, i.e., figuratively. But it is 
reproduced literally by Matthew. 

The death of Osiris, in the Ritual, is followed by the "Night of the Mystery of the Great 
Shapes," and it is explained that the night of the Great Shapes is when there has been 
made the embalming of the body of Osiris, "the Good Being, justified for ever." In the 
chapter on "the night of the laying-out" of the dead body of Osiris, it is said that "Isis 
rises on the night of the laying-out of the dead body, to lament over her brother Osiris." 
And again: "The night of the laying-out" (of the dead Osiris) is mentioned, and again it is 
described as that on which Isis had risen "to make a wail for her brother." 
But this is also the night on which he conquers his enemies, and "receives the birthplace 
of the Gods." "He tramples on the bandages they make for their burial. He raises his soul, 
and conceals his body." So the Christ is found to have unwound the linen bandages of 
burial, and they saw the linen in one place, and the napkin in another. He too conceals his 
body! 

This is closely reproduced, or paralleled, in John's Gospel, where it is Mary Magdalene 
who rises in the night and comes to the sepulchre, "while it was yet dark," to find the 
Christ arisen, as the conqueror of death and the grave. In John's version, after the body is 
embalmed in a hundred pounds weight of spice, consisting of myrrh and aloes, we have 
the "night of the mystery of the shapes": "For while it was yet dark, Mary Magdalene 
coming to the sepulchre, and peering in, sees the two angels in white sitting, the one at 
the head and the other at the feet, where the body had lately lain." And in the chapter of 
"How a living being is not destroyed in hell, or the hour of life ends not in Hades," there 
are two youthful Gods~"two youths of light, who prevail as those who see the light," and 
the vignette shows the deceased walking off. He has risen! 



Matthew has only one angel or splendid presence, whose appearance was as lightning, 
which agrees with Shepi, the Splendid One, who "lights the sarcophagus," as a 
representative of the divinity, Ra. The risen Christ, who is first seen and recognised by 
Mary, says to her, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." The same 
scene is described by the Gnostics: when Sophia rushes forward to embrace the Christ, 
who restrains her by exclaiming that he must not be touched. 

In the last chapter of the "Preservation of the Body in Hades," there is much mystical 
matter that looks plainer when written out in John's Gospel. It is said of the regerminated 
or risen God— "May the Osirian speak to thee?" The Osirian does not know. He (Osiris) 
knows him. "Let him not grasp him. " The Osirified "comes out sound, Immortal is his 
name." "He has passed along the upper roads" (that is, as a risen spirit). 
"He it is who grasps with his hand, " and gives the palpable proof of continued 
personality, as does the Christ, who says, "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." 
The Sun-God re-arises on the horizon, where he issues forth, "saying to those who belong 
to his race, Give me your arm." Says the Osirified deceased, "I am made as ye are." "Let 
him explain it! " At his reappearance the Christ demonstrates that he is made as they are; 
"See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see. And when he had said this 
he showed them his hands and feet. Then he said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and 
see my hands, and reach hither thy hand and put it into my side." These descriptions 
correspond to that of the cut, wounded, and bleeding Sun-God, who says to his 
companions, "Give me your arm; I am made as ye are." 

In the Gospel of the Hebrews he is made to exclaim, "For I am not a bodiless ghost." But 
in the original, when the risen one says to his companions, "Give me your arm, I am 
made as ye are," he speaks as a spirit to spirits. Whereas in the Gospels, the Christ has to 
demonstrate that he is not a spirit, because the scene has been transferred into the earthlife. 
The Gnostics truly declared that all the supernatural transactions asserted in the Christian 
Gospel "were counterparts (or representations) of what took place above." That is, they 
affirmed the history to be mythical; the celestial allegory made mundane; and they were 
in the right, as the Egyptian Gospel proves. There are Healers, and Jehoshua Ben-Pandira 
may have been one. But, because that is possible, we must not allow it to vouch for the 
impossible! Thus, in the Gospels, the mythical is, and has to be, continually reproduced 
as miracle. That which naturally pertains to the character of the Sun-God becomes 
supernatural in appearance when brought down to earth. The Solar God descended into 
the nether world as the restorer of the bound to liberty, the dead to life. In this region the 
miracles were wrought, and the transformations took place. The evil spirits and 
destroying powers were exorcised from the mummies; the halt and the maimed were 
enabled to get up and go; the dead were raised, a mouth was given to the dumb, and the 
blind were made to see. 

This "reconstitution of the deceased" is transferred to the earth-life, whereupon "the blind 
receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead 
are raised up" at the coming of the Christ, who performed the miracles. The drama, which 
the Idiotai mistook for human history, was performed by the Sun-God in another world. 
I could keep on all day, and all night, or give a dozen lectures, without exhausting my 
evidence that the Canonical Gospels are only a later literalised rechauffe of the Egyptian 
writings; the representations in the Mysteries, and the oral teachings of the Gnostics 
which passed out of Egypt into Greece and Rome—for there is plenty more proof where 
this comes from. I can but offer a specimen brick of that which is elsewhere a building set 
four-square, and sound against every blast that blows. 

The Christian dispensation is believed to have been ushered in by the birth of a child, and 
the portrait of that child in the Roman Catacombs as the child of Mary is the youthful 
Sun-God in the Mummy Image of the child-king, the Egyptian Karast, or Christ. The 
alleged facts of our Lord's life as Jesus the Christ, were equally the alleged facts of our 



Lord's life as the Horus of Egypt, whose very name signifies the Lord. 
The Christian legends were first related of Horus the Messiah, the Solar Hero, the 
greatest hero that ever lived in the mind of man — not in the flesh—the only hero to whom 
the miracles were natural, because he was not human. 

From beginning to end the history is not human but divine, and the divine is the mythical. 
From the descent of the Holy Ghost to overshadow Mary, to the ascension of the risen 
Christ at the end of forty days, according to the drama of the pre-Christian Mysteries, the 
subject-matter, the characters, occurrences, events, acts, and sayings bear the impress of 
the mythical mould instead of the stamp of human history. Right through, the ideas which 
shape the history were pre-extant, and are identifiably pre-Christian; and so we see the 
strange sight to-day in Europe of 100,000,000 of Pagans masquerading as Christians. 
Whether you believe it or not does not matter, the fatal fact remains that every trait and 
feature which go to make up the Christ as Divinity, and every event or circumstance 
taken to establish the human personality were pre-extant, and pre-applied to the Egyptian 
and Gnostic Christ, who never could become flesh. The Jesus Christ with female paps, 
who is the Alpha and Omega of Revelation, was the IU of Egypt, and the Iao of the 
Chaldeans. Jesus as the Lamb of God, and Ichthys the Fish, was Egyptian. Jesus as the 
Coming One; Jesus born of the Virgin Mother, who was overshadowed by the Holy 
Ghost; Jesus born of two mothers, both of whose names are Mary; Jesus born in the 
manger— at Christmas, and again at Easter; Jesus saluted by the three kings, or Magi; 
Jesus of the transfiguration on the Mount; Jesus whose symbol in the Catacombs is the 
eight-rayed Star— the Star of the East; Jesus as the eternal Child; Jesus as God the Father, 
re-born as his own Son; Jesus as the Child of twelve years; Jesus as the Anointed One of 
thirty years; Jesus in his Baptism; Jesus walking on the Waters, or working his Miracles; 
Jesus as the Caster-out of demons; Jesus as a Substitute, who suffered in a vicarious 
atonement for sinful men; Jesus whose followers are the two brethren, the four fishers, 
the seven fishers, the twelve apostles, the seventy (or seventy-two in some texts) whose 
names were written in Heaven; Jesus who was administered to by seven women; Jesus in 
his bloody sweat; Jesus betrayed by Judas; Jesus as conqueror of the grave; Jesus the 
Resurrection and the Life; Jesus before Herod; in the Hades, and in his re-appearance to 
the women, and to the seven fishers; Jesus who was crucified both on the 14th and 15th 
of the month Nisan; Jesus who was also crucified in Egypt (as it is written in Revelation); 
Jesus as judge of the dead, with the sheep on the right hand, and the goats on the left, is 
Egyptian from first to last, in every phase, from the beginning to the end— 
MAKE WHATSOEVER YOU CAN OF JEHOSHUA BEN-PANDIRA. 
In some of the ancient Egyptian Temples the Christian iconoclasts, when tired of hacking 
and hewing at the symbolic figures incised in the chambers of imagery, and defacing the 
most prominent features of the monuments, found they could not dig out the 
hieroglyphics and took to covering them over with plaster or tempera; and this plaster, 
intended to hide the meaning and stop the mouth of the stone Word, has served to 
preserve the ancient writings, as fresh in hue and sharp in outline as when they were first 
cut and coloured. 

In a similar manner the Temple of the ancient religion was invaded, and possession 
gradually gained by connivance of Roman power; and that enduring fortress, not built, 
but quarried out of the solid rock, was stuccoed all over the front, and made white awhile 
with its look of brand-newness, and re-opened under the sign of another name— that of the 
carnalised Christ. And all the time each nook and corner were darkly alive with the 
presence and the proofs of the earlier gods, and the pre-Christian origines, even though 
the hieroglyphics remained unread until the time of Champollion! But stucco is not for 
lasting wear, it cracks and crumbles; sloughs off and slinks away into its natal 
insignificance; the rock is the sole true foundation; the rock is the only record in which 
we can reach reality at last! 



Wilkinson, the Egyptologist, has actually said of Osiris on earth:— "Some may be 
disposed to think that the Egyptians, being aware of the promises of the real saviour, had 
anticipated that event, regarding it as though it had already happened, and introduced that 
mystery into their religious system!" This is what obstetrists term & false presentation; a 
birth feet-foremost. We are also told by writers on the Catacombs, and the Christian 
Iconography, that this figure is Osiris, as a type of Christ. This is Pan, Apollo, Aristeus, 
as a type of Christ. This is Harpocrates, as a type of Christ. This is Mercury, but as a type 
of Christ; this is the devil (for Sut-Mercury was the devil), as a type of Christ; until long 
hearing of the facts reversed, perverted and falsified, makes one feel as if under a 
nightmare which has lasted for eighteen centuries, knowing the Truth to have been buried 
alive and made dumb all that time; and believing that it has only to get voice and make 
itself heard to end the lying once for all, and bring down the curtain of oblivion at last 
upon the most pitiful drama of delusion ever witnessed on the human stage. 
And here the worst foes of the truth have ever been, and still are, the rationalisers of the 
Mythos, such as the Unitarians. They have assumed the human history as the starting 
point, and accepted the existence of a personal founder of Christianity as the one initial 
and fundamental fact. They have done their best to humanise the divinity of the Mythos, 
by discharging the supernatural and miraculous element, in order that the narrative might 
be accepted as history. Thus they have lost the battle from the beginning, by fighting it on 
the wrong ground. 

The Christ is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a layfigure 
that was once the Ram, and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form 
was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods. The imagery of the Catacombs 
shows that the types there represented are not the ideal figures of the human reality! They 
are the sole reality for six or seven centuries after AD. , because they had been so in the 
centuries long before. There is no man upon the cross in the Catacombs of Rome for 
seven hundred years! The symbolism, the allegories, the figures, and types, brought on by 
the Gnostics, remained there just what they had been to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, 
and Egyptians. Yet, the dummy ideal of Paganism is supposed to have become doubly 
real as the God who was made flesh, to save mankind from the impossible "fall!" 
Remember that the primary foundation-stone for a history in the New Testament is 
dependent upon the Fall of Man being a fact in the Old; whereas it was only a fable, 
which had its own mythical and unhistorical meaning. 

When we try over again that first step once taken in the dark, we find no foothold for us, 
because there was no stair. The Fall is absolutely non-historical, and, consequently, the 
first bit of standing-ground for an actual Christ, the redeemer, is missing in the very 
beginning. Any one who set up, or was set up, for an historical Saviour from a nonhistorical 
Fall, could only be an historical impostor. But the Christ of the Gospels is not 
even that! He is in no sense an historical personage. It is impossible to establish the 
existence of an historical character, even as an impostor. For such an one the two 
witnesses—Astronomical Mythology and Gnosticism— completely prove an alibi for ever! 
From the first supposed catastrophe to the final one, the figures of the celestial allegory 
were ignorantly mistaken for matters of fact, and thus the orthodox Christolator is left at 
last to climb to heaven with one foot resting on the ground of a redemption that must be 
fallacious. It is a fraud founded on a fable! 

Every time the Christian turns to the East to bow his obeisance to the Christ, it is a 
confession that the cult is Solar, the admission being all the more fatal because it is 
unconscious. Every picture of the Christ, with the halo of glory, and the accompanying 
Cross of the Equinox, proffers proof. 

The Christian doctrine of a resurrection furnishes evidence, absolutely conclusive, of the 
Astronomical and Kronian nature of the origines! This is to occur, as it always did, at the 
end of a cycle; or at the end of the world! Christian Revelation knows nothing of 



immortality, except in the form of periodic renewal, dependent on the "Coming One;" 
and the resurrection of the dead still depends on the day of judgment and the last day, at 
the end of the world! They have no other world. Their only other world is at the end of 
this. 

Now there are no fools living who would be fools big enough to cross the Atlantic Ocean 
in a barque so rotten and unseaworthy as this in which they hope to cross the dark River 
of Death, and, on a pier of cloud, be landed safe in Heaven. The Christian Theology was 
responsible for substituting faith instead of knowledge; and the European mind is only 
just beginning to recover from the mental paralysis induced by that doctrine which came 
to its natural culmination in the Dark Ages. 

The Christian religion is responsible for enthroning the cross of death in heaven, with a 
deity on it, doing public penance for a private failure in the commencement of creation. It 
has taught men to believe that the vilest spirit may be washed white, in the atoning blood 
of the purest, offered up as a bribe to an avenging God. It has divinized a figure of 
helpless human suffering, and a face of pitiful pain; as if there were naught but a great 
heartache at the core of all things; or the vast Infinite were but a veiled and sad-eyed 
sorrow that brings visibly to birth in the miseries of human life. But "in the old Pagan 
world men deified the beautiful, the glad;" as they will again, upon a loftier pedestal, 
when the fable of this fictitious fall of man, and false redemption by the cloud-begotten 
God, has passed away like a phantasm of the night, and men awake to learn that they are 
here to wage ceaseless war upon sordid suffering, remediable wrong, and preventable 
pain; here to put an end to them, not to apotheosize an effigy of Sorrow to be adored as a 
type of the Eternal. For the most beneficent is the most beautiful; the happiest are the 
healthiest; the most God-like is most glad. The Christian Cult has fanatically fought for 
its false theory, and waged incessant warfare against Nature and Evolution—Nature's 
intention made somewhat visible—and against some of the noblest instincts, during 
eighteen centuries. Seas of human blood have been spilt to keep the barque of Peter 
afloat. Earth has been honeycombed with the graves of the martyrs of Freethought. 
Heaven has been filled with a horror of great darkness in the name of God. 
Eighteen centuries are a long while in the life-time of a lie, but a brief span in the eternity 
of Truth. The Fiction is sure to be found out, and the Lie will fall at last! At last! At 
last!!! 

No matter though it towers to the sky, 

And darkens earth, you cannot make the lie 

Immortal; though stupendously enshrined 

By art in every perfect mould of mind: 

Angelo, Rafael, Milton, Handel, all 

Its pillars, cannot stay it from the fall. 

The Pyramid of Imposture reared by Rome, 

All of cement, for an eternal home, 

Must crumble back to earth, and every gust 

Shall revel in the desert of its dust; 

And when the prison of the Immortal, Mind, 

Hath fallen to set free the bound and blind, 

No more shall life be one long dread of death; 

Humanity shall breathe with ampler breath, 

Expand in spirit, and in stature rise, 

To match its birthplace of the earth and skies. 



PAUL THE GNOSTIC OPPONENT OF PETER, 
NOT AN APOSTLE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY 



(Fuller Egyptian and Gnostic Data, with references to the authorities, may be found in the Author's "Natural Genesis. ") 

It has been shown in previous lectures that the matter of our Canonical Gospels is, to a 
large extent, mythical, and that the Gnosis of Ancient Egypt was carried into other lands 
by the underground passage of the Mysteries, to emerge at last as the literalised legend of 
Historic Christianity. 

The mythical Christ was as surely continued from Egypt as were the mythical types of 
the Christ on the Gnostic Stones and in the Catacombs of Rome! Once this ground is felt 
to be firm underfoot it emboldens and warrants us in cutting the Gordian knot that has 
been so deftly complicated for us in the Epistles of Paul. To-day we have to face a 
problem that is one of the most difficult; it is my object to prove that Paul was the 
opponent and not the apostle of Historic Christianity. It is well known to all serious 
students of the subject that there was an original rent or rift of difference between the 
preacher Paul and the other founders of Christianity, whom he first met in Jerusalem— 
namely, Cephas (or Peter), James, and John. He did not think much of them personally, 
but scoffs a little at their pretensions to being Pillars of the Church. Those men had 
nothing in common with him from the first, and never forgave him for his independence 
and opposition to the last. But the depth of that visible rift has not yet been fathomed in 
consequence of false assumptions; and my own researches and determination to look and 
think for myself have led me to the inevitable conclusion that there is but one way in 
which it can be bottomed for the first time. 

It is likewise more or less apprehended that two voices are heard contending in Paul's 
Epistles, to the confounding of the writer's sense and the confusion of the reader's. They 
utter different doctrines, so fundamentally opposed as to be for ever irreconcilable; and 
this duplicity of doctrine makes Paul, who is the one distinct and single-minded 
personality of the "New Testament," look like the most double-faced of men; doubletongued 
as the serpent. The two doctrines are those of the Gnostic, or Spiritual Christ, 
and the historic Jesus. Both cannot be true to Paul; and my contention is that both voices 
did not proceed from him personally. 

We know that Paul and the other Apostles did not preach the same gospel; and it is my 
present purpose to show that they did not set forth or celebrate the same Christ. My thesis 
is, that Paul was not a supporter of the system known as Historical Christianity, which 
was founded on a belief in the Christ carnalised; an assumption that the Christ had been 
made flesh; but that he was its unceasing and deadly opponent during his lifetime; and 
that after his death his writings were tampered with, interpolated, and re-indoctrinated by 
his old enemies, the forgers and falsifiers, who first began to weave the web of the 
Papacy in Rome. In this way there was added a fourth pillar or corner-stone to the 
original three in Jerusalem, which was turned into the chief support of the whole 
structure; the firmest foundation of the fallacious faith. 

The supreme feat, performed in secret by the managers of the Mysteries in Rome, was 
this conversion of the Epistles of Paul into the main support of Historic Christianity! It 
was the very pivot on which the total imposture turned! In his lifetime he had fought 
tooth and nail, with tongue and pen, against the men who founded the faith of the Christ 
made flesh, and damned eternally all disbelievers; and after his death they reared the 
Church of the Sarkolatrce above his tomb, and for eighteen centuries have, with a forged 



warrant, claimed him as being the first and foremost among the founders. They cleverly 
dammed the course of the natural river that flowed forth from its own independent source 
in the Epistles of Paul, and turned its waters into their own artificial canal, so that Paul's 
living force should be made to float the bark of Peter. Nevertheless, those who care to 
look closely will see that the two waters, like those of the river Rhone, will not mingle in 
one colour! And it appears to me that, whether Paul was mad or not in this life, such 
nefarious treatment of his writings was bad enough to drive him frantic in the next, and 
make him insane there until the wrong is righted. 

It is the universal assumption that Paul, the persecutor of the early Christians, was 
converted by a vision of the risen Jesus, who proved his historic nature and identity by 
appearing to Paul in person. So it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. The account, 
however, is entirely opposed to that which is given by Paul himself in his Epistle to the 
Galatians. He tells how the change occurred, which has been called his conversion. It was 
by revelation of the Christ within, but not by an objective vision of a personal Jesus, who 
demonstrated in spirit world the reality and identity of an historic Jesus of Nazareth, who 
had lately lived on earth. Such a version as that is rigorously impossible, according to 
Paul's own words. His account of the matter is totally antipodal. He received his 
commission to preach the Christ, as he declares, "when it was the good pleasure of God 
to reveal his Son in me, " and therefore not by an apparition of Jesus of Nazareth outside 
of him! His Christ within was not the Corpus of Christian belief, but the Christ of the 
Gnosis. He heard no voice external to himself, which could be converted into the audible 
voice of an historic Jesus; and nothing can be more instructive to begin with, than a 
comparative study of these two versions, for showing how the matter has been 
manipulated, and the facts perverted, for the purpose of establishing or supporting an 
orthodox history. What he did hear when caught up in the spirit he tells us was 
unspeakable; words which it is not lawful for a man to utter! He makes no mention of a 
Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, Jesus of Nazareth is unknown to Paul! His name never once 
appears in the Epistles; and the significance of the fact in favour of the present view can 
hardly be exaggerated. So, Jesus of Nazareth does not appear in the Gospel of Marcion; 
or, as it was represented by some of the Christian Fathers, Marcion had removed the 
name of Jesus of Nazareth from his particular Gospel —being so virulent a heretic! Here 
we find Paul in agreement with Marcion, the Gnostic rejecter of Jesus of Nazareth, and of 
historic Christianity. Moreover, Paul was the only apostle of the true Christ who was 
recognised by Marcion. Now, as Marcion had rejected the human nature of the Christ, 
and left the sect which ultimately became the church of historic Christianity, it is 
impossible that he could have adopted or upheld the Gospel of Paul as it has come down 
to us in our version of the Epistles. Hence, Irenaeus complains that Marcion dismembered 
the Epistles of Paul, and removed those passages from the prophetical writings which had 
been quoted to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord! That is, 
Marcion, the man who knew, recognised his fellow-Gnostic in Paul, but rejected the 
literalisations and the spurious doctrines which had been surreptitiously interpolated by 
the founders, who were the forgers, of Historic Christianity. Further, with regard to the 
Marcionites, Ireneeus says they allege that Paul alone, of all the Christian teachers, knew 
the truth; and that to him the Mystery was manifested by revelation. They spoke as 
Gnostics of a Gnostic. At the same time, as Irenasus tells us, the Gnostics, of whom 
Marcion was one, charged the other Apostles with hypocrisy, because they "framed their 
doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, fabling blind things for the blind 
according to their blindness; for the dull, according to their dulness; for those in error, 
according to their errors. " 

Clement Alexander asserts that Paul, before going to Rome, stated that he would bring to 
the Brethren (not the true Gospel history, but) the Gnosis, or Gnostic communication, the 
tradition of the hidden mysteries, as the fulness of the blessings of Christ, which Clement 



says were revealed by the Son of God, the "teacher who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, " 
i.e., by revelations made in the state of trance. He was going there as a Gnostic, and 
therefore as the natural opponent of Historic Christianity. 

The conversion of Paul, according to the Acts, is supposed to have occurred sometime 
after the year 30 AD. at the earliest; and yet if we accept the data furnished by the book of 
Acts and Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, he must have been converted as early as the year 
27 AD. Paul states that after his conversion he did not go up to Jerusalem for three years. 
Then after 14 more years he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas. This second visit 
can be dated by means of the famine, which is historic, and known to have occurred in 
the year 44, at which time relief was conveyed to the brethren in Judea by Barnabas and 
Paul. If we take 17 years from 44, the different statements go to show that Paul had been 
converted as early as the year 27. Thus, according to the dates and the data derived from 
the Acts, from Paul's epistle, and the historic fact of the famine, Paul was converted to 
Christianity in the year 27 of our era! This could not have been by a spiritual 
manifestation of the supposed personal Jesus, who was not then dead, and had not at that 
time been re-begotten as the Christ of the canonical history. This is usually looked upon 
(by Renan, for example,) as such an absurdity that no credence can be allowed to the 
account in the Acts. On the contrary, and notwithstanding all that has been said by those 
whose work it is to put a false bottom into the Unknown, I am free to maintain that 
nothing stands in the way of its being a possibility and a fact, except the assumption that 
it is an impossibility. You cannot date one event by another which never occurred, or, if it 
did occur, is not recorded by Paul, especially when his own account offers negative 
evidence of its non-occurrence. It is only using plain words justifiably to say that the 
concocters of the Acts falsify whenever it is convenient, and tell the truth when they 
cannot help it! In Paul's own account of his conversion he continues: "Immediately, I 
conferred not with the flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were 
Apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia. " He did not seek to know anything 
about the personal Jesus of Nazareth, his life, his miracles, his crucifixion, resurrection, 
and ascension; had no anxiety to hear anything whatever from living witnesses or 
relatives about the human nature of this Divine Being, who is supposed to have appeared 
to Paul in person; completely changed the current of his life, and transformed his 
character; no wish even to verify the historic or possible ground-work for the reality of 
his alleged vision of Jesus! When he did go up to Jerusalem, three years afterwards, and 
again in fourteen years, he positively learned nothing whatever from those who ought to 
have been able to teach him and tell him all things on matters of vital importance (for 
historic Christianity), about which he should have been most desirous to know, but had 
no manifest desire of knowing. He saw James, Peter, and John, who were the pillars of 
the church and persons of repute, but whatever they were it made no matter to him; they 
imparted nothing to him. He says these respectable persons, these pillars, who seemed to 
be somewhat, communicated nothing to him; contrariwise, it was he who had a gospel of 
his own, which he had received from no man, to communicate to them! He had come to 
bring them the Gnosis. They privately gave him the hand of fellowship, and offered to 
acknowledge him if he would keep out of their way with his other gospel—go to the 
Gentiles (or go to the Devil), and leave them alone. There was a compromise, and 
therefore something to compromise, though not on Paul's account; but the only point of 
genuine agreement between them was that they agreed to differ! On comparing notes, he 
found that they were preaching quite another gospel, and another Jesus. We know what 
their gospel was, because it has come down to us in the doctrines and dogmas of historic 
Christianity. It was the gospel of the literalisers of mythology; the gospel of the Christ 
made flesh to save mankind from an impossible fall; the gospel of salvation by the 
atoning blood of Christ; the gospel that would make a hell of this life, on purpose to win 
heaven hereafter; the gospel of flesh and physics, including the corporeal resurrection, 



and the immediate ending of the world; the gospel that has no other world except at the 
end of this. Theirs was that other gospel with its doctrines of delusion, against which Paul 
waged continual warfare. For, another Jesus, another Spirit, and another gospel were 
being preached by these pre-eminent apostles who were the opponents of Paul. He warns 
the Corinthians against those "pre-eminent apostles," whom he calls false prophets, 
deceitful workers, and ministers of Satan, who came among them to preach "another 
Jesus" whom he did not preach, and a different gospel from that which they had received 
from him. To the Galatians he says: "If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other 
than that which ye received, let him be damned; " or let him be Anathema. He chides 
them: "O, foolish, Galatians, who did bewitch you? Are ye so foolish: having begun in 
the Spirit, are ye perfected in the flesh?" That is, in the gospel of the Christ made flesh, 
the gospel to those who were at enmity with him, who followed on his track like Satan 
sowing tares by night to choke the seed of the spiritual gospel which Paul had so 
painfully sown, and who, as he intimates to the Thessalonians, were quite capable of 
forging epistles in his name to deceive his followers. It has never yet been shown how 
fundamental was this feud between Paul and the forgers of the fleshly faith, because the 
real facts had not been grappled with or grasped concerning the totally different bases of 
belief, and the forever irreconcilable gospels of the Gnostic or spiritual Christ, and of the 
Christ made flesh, to be set forth as the Saviour of mankind, according to Historic 
Christianity. It was impossible that Paul and Peter should draw or pull together; the 
different grounds of their faith were in the beginning from pole to pole apart. He says: "I 
made known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is 
not after man. For neither did I receive it from man (or from a man), nor was I taught it, 
save through revelation of the Christ revealed within. " 

He did not derive his facts from history, nor his gospel from the Apostles; he was neither 
taught by man nor book. He derived his gospel from direct personal revelation of the 
Christ within. In short, his Christ was not that Jesus of Nazareth whom he never 
mentions, and whom the others preached, and who may have been, and in all likelihood 
was, Joshua Ben Pandira, the Nazarene. 

From the present standpoint there is no doctrinal difficulty, even about Paul being the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. I do not need to call in another author here anymore 
than elsewhere. The double-dealing of the interpolaters and forgers would be cause 
enough to account for all the difference and the difficulty. They who would have, or who 
had forged epistles in his own name, would not scruple to indoctrinate his writings when 
they got the chance; and if this epistle be not Paul's, then his name as author has been 
forged. Now, in this epistle, the Christ is non-historical, he is the Kronian Christ, the 
Ionian manifestor of the mythical, that is astronomical prophecy; he is after the order of 
Melchizedek, who was "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having 
neither beginning of days, nor end of life. " This was the ever-coming one who could not 
become a human personage; and for that reason, I take it, Paul repudiates the genealogies 
of Christ. In advising Titus to give no heed to "Jewish Fables, " he tells him to "shun 
foolish questionings and genealogies. " He counsels Timothy to warn his followers 
against giving heed to "fables and endless genealogies, " such, for instance, as we now 
find in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke." These could have no application to 
the Christ of the Gnosis, hence their absence from the gospel according to John. Human 
genealogy could not indicate the Gnostic mode of the Divine Descent; could not 
authenticate the "Word" of John, or Philo; nor the Christ of Marcus, or of Paul; 
consequently we learn that Marcus, the Gnostic, eliminated the genealogies from the 
gospel of Luke, and all that was written respecting the generation of the Lord. The 
Doceta? who rejected the humanity of Christ had, as Epiphanius phrases it, "Cut away the 
genealogies in the gospel after Matthew. " Tatian, the pupil of Justin, who is called an 
"Apostle from the Church, " also struck out the genealogies that were intended to prove 



the human descent of the Christ; he who had once accepted the gospel of the Christ made 
flesh, but rejected it when he had learned to know better. This they did because their 
Christ was spiritual, not an historic Jesus; and the same reason holds good as an 
explanation for Paul. He repudiated the vain genealogies employed in vain by those who 
sought to establish a human line of descent for the Christ, because he rejected the fleshand- 
blood Jesus who was preached by the advocates of Historic Christianity. This being 
so, it follows that the opening passage of the Epistle to the Romans, which now looks like 
Paul's first utterance to all the world, begins the tale of the interpolations, and thus 
appears in the right place, for it stands nearly alone in the writings of Paul, with its frank 
or forced acknowledgment of the humanity of Jesus, by admitting the Word made flesh to 
be of the seed of David. But the Christ of Paul could not, at one and the same time, have 
been "without genealogy" and yet be of the seed of Abraham or David. That would be a 
complete reversal of his teaching, who, in rejecting the genealogies, had already 
repudiated the descent from David. Moreover, Barnabas, the most intimate friend of Paul 
and fellow-teacher with him, who, as a Gnostic, denied the human nature of the Christ, 
and, like Paul, spoke disrespectfully of the other Apostles—Barnabas assures us it was 
according to the error of the wicked that Christ was called the Son of David. Paul also 
tells us that no "man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. xii. 3), 
and therefore not through the facts of an external history, or human pedigree. 
The Christ of the Gnosis was not connected with place any more than personality, or line 
of human descent. His only birthplace was in the mind of man. Consequently, in his 
gospel, Marcion, who was a Gnostic Christian, does not connect his Christ with Nazareth. 
His Christ is not Jesus of Nazareth. And this note of the Gnosis is apparent in the writings 
of Paul. His Christ is nowhere called Jesus of Nazareth, nor is he born at Bethlehem, 
either of the Virgin Mary, or of Mary the wife of Cleopas, who was not the Virgin. Of 
course, either an historic Jesus could become the Christ, as Saviour of the world, or he 
could not; and, as the world never was lost in any such sense as the ignorant have derived 
from a fable misinterpreted, why he could not, and as he could not, then he did not, and 
Paul who was an Adept in the mysteries, a Master of the Hidden Wisdom, could never 
have mistaken the fable for a fact on which to build his system of Christology; nor could 
he accept it from others. When once we have got the Gnostic clue to the Hidden Wisdom, 
we find an universal argument amongst the Gnostics concerning their tenets. Wherever 
we meet with them they give us the Masonic grip; and by the same sign we know that 
Paul was a Gnostic. This is further corroborated by his own claim to have been an Adept, 
a wise master-builder, one who spoke wisdom amongst the Perfected. He was a Gnostic 
in the supreme degree, and all Gnostics agree that the Christ of the Gnosis could not be 
made flesh, and therefore all are, and must be opposed to Historic Christianity, Paul 
included. It was as a Gnostic, a wise master-builder, that Paul laid the foundations which 
others built upon; and the superstructure they reared became the Church of Historic 
Christianity. The Gnostics were Christians in an esoteric sense, but not because they 
explained a human history esoterically There was no history to explain until the myth 
had been made exoteric by those who were ignorant, or who cunningly converted the 
Gnosis into history. It was the work of Peter to make the mysteries exoteric in a human 
history. It was the work of Paul to prevent this being effected by explaining the Gnosis. 
Hints of this appear in the Epistles when he speaks of his gospel, and the revelation of his 
mystery concerning the Christ, and warns his disciples against the preaching of that 
"other gospel" and "other Jesus, " which are opposed to his own truer teaching. As when 
he tells Timothy to "remember Jesus Christ according to my gospel, " and says to the 
Romans, "establish you according to my gospel; " that was the gospel of the Gnosis which 
he had brought to them. 

We are also able to watch the interpolators of his writings at their work. The tampering 
with the text of Paul's Epistles is still made apparent by a comparison of the various 



recensions, as the marginal notes in the Revised version yet suffice to show; and if this 
remains so palpable in the latest transcript, what must it have been in the earlier and 
nearest to the author's original? In some instances, instead of a perfect join, there is a 
gaping gulf of doctrinal difference, too deep for the interpolators themselves. There is a 
ludicrous mixture of the historical Jesus and spiritual Christ in the First Epistle of Paul to 
Timothy, where Christ Jesus is spoken of as he "who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed the 
good confession; " and half a dozen lines later on Paul's Jesus is the "lord of lords 
dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen, nor can see. " That is the 
Christ of the Gnosis who could not be made flesh to stand in the presence of Pontius 
Pilate. Again, Paul speaks as a spiritualist of our transformation in death and the 
continuity of consciousness, when he says: "Behold, I tell you a mystery, we shall not 
entirely sleep, but shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. " This was 
the mystery of the Gnosis and the transformation revealed by spiritual phenomena. Then 
follows the interpolated doctrine of the resurrection at the last day: "For the trumpet shall 
sound and the dead shall be raised. " Physically, which was impossible to Paul. These are 
as opposite as yes and no, or day and night. Once more, we know how emphatically Paul 
insists on the originality of his gospel. It was his very own, personally received by 
revelation. He derived nothing from the supposed apostles of an historic Jesus; they 
imparted nothing to him, and he received nothing from any man. Yet in face of this fatal 
evidence the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is assigned to Paul, is made to 
say, that the "salvation first spoken through the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that 
heard! " And in his Epistle to the Corinthians he is made to declare that he first of all 
delivered to them that which he had received (not by subjective revelation, but according 
to the history externalised), "How that Christ died for our sins, according to the 
Scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath appeared to Cephas, then to the 
twelve, then he appeared to above five hundred of the brethren at once [this is piling it 
up!] then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as unto one born 
out of due time, he appeared to me also, for I am the least of the apostles, that am not 
meet to be called an apostle. " But James and Cephas were those whom he saw in 
Jerusalem, and who, as he expressly tells us, had imparted nothing to him! The passage 
belies what Paul has elsewhere said, and is at war with all he was! So far from lowering 
himself in that way, he asserts in the very same epistle: "In nothing was I behind these 
pre-eminent apostles"-therefove he was not behind in time! "Let me speak proudly! " that 
was his attitude when he compared himself with Cephas, James, and John. And if Paul 
ever did call himself an abortion (the true rendering of the sense), we may be sure that he 
did not apply such a figure of that which is premature to the lateness of his birth as an 
apostle. It cannot be made to apply. The Gnostics tell us what he did mean. They alone 
could understand the allusion, which carries the Christ of the Gnosis with it. The Christ 
appears to Paul, as to an abortion, just as did Horus the Christ to Sophia (or Achamoth), 
when she forlornly lay outside of the pleroma as an amorphous abortion, and the Christ 
came and extended himself cross-wise and gave her flowing substance form! Here the 
Gnostic doctrine involves the Christ of the Gnosis, and not of the human history. Paul 
applies the figure to himself. If these statements had been true, Paul must have been 
taught by men. This was to receive his information from Scriptures (whatsoever they may 
have been!), and was not to receive his revelation solely from the Christ, who came 
within, as he declares. In this way it becomes apparent how Paul's writings were made 
orthodox by the men who preached another gospel than his; with whom he was at war 
during his lifetime, and who took a bitter-sweet revenge on his writings by suppression 
and addition, after he was dead and gone. 

The Christ proclaimed by Paul is frequently designated the "first-born. " He is the "firstborn 
of all creation" (Col. i. 16), "the first-born from the dead" (Col. i. 18), the "firstborn 
among many brethren. " "Now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first-fruits 



of them that slept!" But in what sense? It is impossible to apply such descriptions to any 
historical character. No Historical Jesus could be the First-born from the dead. 
If continuity be a natural fact, as was held by the Gnostics (and Paul was a Gnostic!), and 
is maintained by all Spiritualists (and Paul was a Spiritualist!), we shall live on by a law 
of nature, not by some jugglery with natural law, called a miracle, performed once upon a 
time! The first-born from the dead could not have waited for the resurrection until Anno 
Domini; nor could our spiritual continuity have been demonstrated at that or any previous 
period by a physical resurrection, such as forms the foundation of the Christian faith! The 
doctrine enunciated by Paul was Egyptian, Chaldean, Kabbalist, and Gnostic, and, as 
such, it can be explained. 

In the Ritual the soul that rises again from the dead exults and exclaims, "I am the only 
one that comes forth from the body!" that is, as the supreme soul of all the seven; the one 
representative of the pleroma of powers, or as Paul has it, "the first-born of many 
brethren; " the first-born from the dead, because the only one that attained immortality, as 
the spiritual man, or the Christ, called the Second Adam by Paul; that celestial man 
referred to by Philo when he says: "There is the man whose name is East. A strange 
appellation if it had been intended to speak of a man composed of soul and body. But if it 
be the Incorporeal man, who comprehends in himself the divine Idea, it must be admitted 
that East is the name that suits him best; " i.e., the re-orient man of the resurrection, or realising. 
It is the same Gnostic typology employed by Paul when he speaks of "building 
up the body of Christ; till we all attain unto the unity of faith, and of the knowledge (or 
Gnosis) of the Son of God; unto a full-grown man; unto the measure of the stature of the 
fulness of Christ. " The fulness of the Christ being the Egyptian, Buddhist, and Gnostic 
pleroma of all the seven preceding powers that culminated in the Christhood. 
One title of the Gnostic Christ is "All things. " He is called Totum, or "All things. " 
Nothing short of the Gnosis can tell us why. The Christian world is without the Gnosis, 
and therefore without the means of understanding Paul! Concerning the formation or 
creation of the Gnostic Christ in the character of "All things, " or Totum, we are told that 
"The whole pleroma of the Anions, with one design and desire, brought together whatever 
each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness, and uniting all these 
contributions, so as to skilfully blend the whole, they produced a being of most perfect 
beauty, the very Saviour Christ. " This "All things, " who was the consummate flower of 
the fulness or pleroma of the previous seven powers, is the Christ of Paul, who, himself, 
is "All things, " because in "him are all things, " and in "all things" he has the preeminence. 
"All things are summed up in Christ" (Eph. i. 10). "Of him, through him, and 
unto him, are all things" (Rom. xi. 36). "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily" (Col. ii. 9). That is as the Gnostic Totum!— the All—The Christ— the eternal Soul 
or Spirit, in "whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden! He warns his 
followers against a certain false teacher, whom he knows personally, and might name, 
and whose teaching is after the "tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 
not after the Christ" of the pleroma. The Gnostic Christ was also called Eudocetos, 
because the whole pleroma of the Godhead was well pleased with him as glorifier of the 
Father. This is Paul's Christ, in whom the whole fulness (pleroma) was pleased to dwell. 
The text in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians should be "for the whole fulness was pleased 
to dwell in him. " There is neither "God" nor "Father" in the case. It is the whole Gnostic 
pleroma of powers which made up the immortal soul, or came to the consummate flower 
of soul in man, and the Godhead in the Christ, as sum total of the powers. The Ancient 
Gnosis comes first. Paul repeats it; and then we have an adaptation of it to the later gospel 
history, in which we hear the voice of the Father in heaven saying: "This is my beloved 
Son in whom I am well pleased. " The Gnostics did not derive their knowledge from the 
history, any more than Paul did, and therefore it follows that the history was derived from 
an adaptation of the Gnosis. 



The founders of Historic Christianity taught and enforced the doctrine that their Jesus the 
Christ had risen from the dead, body, bones, and all, and that he demonstrated the fact to 
his followers when he declared that he was not a spirit! The resurrection, therefore, was 
physical from the first! In a confession found in the Apostolic Creed, in the year 600, the 
convert has to say, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh"; and only the other day 
Canon Gregory declared in St. Paul's Cathedral, that if you took away the physical 
resurrection of Jesus, the one foundation of their spiritual life was gone! If the Christ did 
not rise corporeally from his tomb, then that tomb would be the grave of Christianity. But 
Paul's doctrine of the resurrection is totally opposed to this cardinal doctrine of the 
Christian creed, the resurrection of the body. He does not expect to rise corporeally 
because of any physical resurrection of the Christ. His doctrine is that of the Gnostics, 
and consequently identifiable by the comparative process. It is also entirely opposed to 
that which was proclaimed by his contemporaries, Hymenoeus and Philetus, who taught 
that the resurrection was past already, and who had overthrown the faith of some in the 
doctrine preached by Paul. He says "they are in error, " and "their word will eat as doth a 
gangrene. " Now, the sole way in which the resurrection could be set forth as already past 
was the same then as it is to-day—namely, as the resurrection once for all of a personal 
and historical Saviour, who there and then arose from the dead for the first time and 
instituted the resurrection. Paul's own resurrection from the dead was not assured by any 
such miraculous, non-natural, or impossible means! On the contrary, in a passage which 
shows a cleavage in the context, he breathes an aspiration thus: "If by any means I may 
attain unto the resurrection from the dead"— therefore, not the means set forth by 
Historical Christianity —and he continues: "Not that I have already attained, or am 
already made perfect, but I press on. "Again, this is pure Gnostic doctrine. The Perfect 
were those who had reached the octave, or height of attainment, in a sense which can 
only be understood by the Gnosis. It was his endeavour to reach the Christhood of the 
Gnosis on which the continuity in death depended—a glimpse of which had been obtained 
by him in abnormal vision. This kind of working out of one's own salvation, and earning 
one's own eternal living in this life, is absolutely opposed to the Christian doctrine of the 
Atonement! The old Jewish doctrine of Atonement by blood, continued into historic 
Christianity, is provably impossible to a Gnostic and a spiritualist like Paul. But this was 
the doctrine promulgated by those who preached that "other gospel" which he repudiated. 
Therefore I infer that texts like these are a part of the matter interpolated: "Without 
shedding of blood is no remission of sin" (Heb. ix. 22). "Having made peace through the 
blood of his cross" (Col. i. 20). "In whom we have our redemption through his blood" 
(Eph. i. 7). Such doctrine being impossible to the Gnostic, I hold these texts to have been 
falsely fathered upon Paul. The two doctrines cannot co-exist in one mind, or system of 
thought; and we have to ascertain which of the two is the genuine Pauline doctrine before 
we can determine the nature of his Christology. Again he says, "wherefore let us cease to 
speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection, not laying again a 
foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the teaching of 
baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection from the dead, and of eternal 
judgment, and this will we do! " Here we find a complete repudiation by Paul of certain 
cardinal doctrines of Historic Christianity elsewhere ascribed to him! These are called 
first principles, or those belonging to an exoteric or exterior interpretation of the Gnosis, 
which is looked upon as a pernicious and deadly heresy. They were a part of those 
"beggarly rudiments" which kept men in bondage to the Petrine gospel of the flesh. Paul 
positively repudiates, and most distinctly denies, salvation by means of these Christian 
Sacraments! Those who have taken up with this teaching are treated as backsliders from 
the true faith, which is that of Paul's own gospel, and of the esoteric interpretation. "For 
as touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were 
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of 



the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again. " Every special 
phrase reveals the Gnostic and the Gnosis. Those who fell away have lapsed from the 
interior teaching of Paul, and gone over to those who now preach the externalised history, 
the "other gospel" of the "other Jesus, " with its corporeal resurrection. Having been fed 
on solid food they have become such as have need of milk. This repudiation of dogmas 
culminates in his banishing the resurrection of the dead, and the Eternal Judgment or 
punishment at the Last Day. Here the resurrection of the dead must include that of the 
historic Jesus, if there had been one, and therefore this also is denied. He rejects any 
foundation laid on that, and says, "let us cease to speak of it." Paul, like all Gnostics, 
taught the resurrection from the dead in this life; not the resurrection OF the Dead in the 
life hereafter. Now, it is quite certain that these Gnostic doctrines could not have been 
interpolated in Paul's writings by the founders of the Fleshly Faith. Therefore, it is the 
physical dogmas that have been foisted into the Epistles of Paul. 
I have never yet seen a sign in the works of Christian writers that they knew anything 
whatever of the real nature of these doctrinal mysteries. All alike are ignorant of the 
Tradition or Gnosis on which a true explanation depended. They assume the human 
history as the initial point of a new beginning, and ignore, or are ignorant of, that which 
lies beyond. When called upon to face the facts in broad daylight they themselves will be 
all in the dark, and will have to fight against them blindfold. But it is impossible to enter 
within range of understanding Paul's teaching until we do know something of the 
doctrines that were unfolded in the mysteries. It is impossible to comprehend the mystery 
of Paul's Christ without a fundamental knowledge of the Messianic mystery that had been 
from the Beginning. This was his mystery, which he would not make so much of if he 
had started with what are held to be plain historical gospel truths. He spoke the "Wisdom 
of God in a mystery that hath been hidden; which God foreordained before the worlds 
unto our glory. " The "mystery of Christ which in other generations was not made 
known. " The "mystery which is Christ in you. " His was the "revelation of the mystery 
which hath been kept in silence through times eternal. " The fact is that Paul was a 
publisher of the ancient mysteries; that was why his enemies strove to kill him! He 
openly promulgated the Gnosis which had always been kept secret. But to comprehend 
him we must have some knowledge of the Messianic mystery, which had an origin in 
phenomena that are both natural and explicable. When one has worked at the subject for 
years, it can be explained in a few hours. The root of the Messiah's name is Mesi in 
Egyptian. One meaning, like that of the Christ in Greek and Messiach in Hebrew, is to 
anoint. But the fundamental signification is re-birth. The month, Mes-ore, was so named 
from the re-birth of the Inundation. The mam-mesi was the re-birth-place of the man or 
mummy. The evening meal on the first day of the New Year was the Mesiu, or festival of 
its birth. Cf Sanskrit masa, for a moon or month, and masala for a year. 
This re-birth could be very various in phenomena, and so was the typical Messiah or reborn 
one. The serpent called Mesi, the Sacred Word, was the Messiah by name, because 
the reptile sloughed its skin, and renewed itself. Hence the Serpent was a symbol of the 
Gnostic Christ. Re-birth was the manifestation and the personified Manifestor was the 
Messiah, under whichever type or in whatever phase of the phenomena. Re-birth of the 
Nile, of the light in the moon, of the time-cycle, or of the Dead, could have its Messiah! 
Hence the Messiah had a monthly re-birth in the lunar orb, and a solar one every year— 
with re-birth from the virgin mother in the Zodiac. But there was a more mysterious 
manifestation when the girl or boy attained pubescence, or re-birth, into womanhood and 
manhood. Here the Messiah is both male and female— Charis as well as Christ; Wisdom 
as well as the Word! According to the natural facts, at that period of re-birth was born the 
procreative power for further ensuring the future re-birth of the race. Men and women 
could reproduce themselves in this life. Hence the re-birth of the Anointed One, the 
Messiah of Adultship. But beyond these natural re-births, it was demonstrated in the 



spiritual mysteries of abnormal mediumship, that there was a spirit in man, or, at least, in 
some men, that could reproduce itself, or, by alliance with the power above, could be 
reproduced, or re-born, for the next life. This was the Christ of the Gnosis, the Messianic 
Manifestor in a psychical or spiritual phase; the Revealer, according to the mystery of 
Paul. That which he had received from no man, was communicated to him by this 
revelation of the Christ. But mark; in no one of these phases, elemental, Kronian, or 
human, could the Messiah, the Christ of the manifestation, become any one historic 
personage. Also, in the human phase, there is but one sense in which the Christ could be 
born of a virgin mother, and that can only be understood by taking the Christ as the 
Immortal in man, and supplementing it with the knowledge that the mother was the first 
recognised inspirer of the soul. When typified and made doctrinal, this mother, as 
quickener of the soul, this mother of the Horus, or Christ, may be said to be virgin in a 
region beyond that of physical contact in the fleshly human phase. In a final form, the 
Messiah was the immortal spirit in man, or the Christ within, according to the language 
of Paul. Those who understood these things could not take to, or be taken in by, historic 
Christianity; could only think of it as did Celsus when he says of the Christians: "Certain 
most impious errors are committed by them, which are due to their extreme ignorance, in 
which they have wandered away from the meaning of the divine enigmas"; and as did 
Porphyry, who denounced the Christian religion as a "blasphemy, barbarously bold. " The 
Christian doctrine of being born again was derived without knowledge from this Gnostic 
re-birth, which was the conversion of the total man, and his seven lower souls, into a 
likeness of his supreme or divine self, with the eighth one, the Christ- spirit, as the 
reproducer for eternal life. Paul sometimes claims that he possesses this Christ-nature, 
this Revealer within, because, according to the Gnostics, humanity could attain to the 
divine altitude, and demonstrate upon the Mount of Transfiguration the immortal element 
in the nature of man. The Christian world let go, and lost this basis that Paul found in 
natural, though supra-normal fact, when it ignorantly substituted the modus operandi of 
miracle applied to a physical resurrection. 

But, as we have seen, this manifestor of the of the re-birth might be feminine as well as 
masculine. In fact, the female announcer was first, and there are mystical reasons for this 
in nature. In Hebrew, the Holy Spirit, orruach, is of a feminine gender. The soul is 
female. Some of the Gnostic sects assigned the soul to the female nature, and made their 
Charis not only anterior, but superior, to the Christ. In the Book of Wisdom it is Sophia 
herself who is the pre-Christian Saviour of mankind. It was Wisdom that men are taught, 
and she is the Saviour through knowledge and good works. Whereas the Christ was 
turned into a Saviour through faith. The same Tree of Knowledge that supplied the fruit 
which damned the primal pair in the Genesis, is the Tree of Wisdom in the Apocrypha, 
where Wisdom, personified as the Tree, exclaims, "I am the mother of fair love, and fear, 
and knowledge, and holy hope. Come unto me all ye that be desirous of me, and fill 
yourselves with my fruits. For my memorial is sweeter than honey, and mine inheritance 
than the honey-comb. He that obeyeth me shall never be confounded. " This complete 
reversal of the Christian belief is to be found in the Hidden Wisdom! Such was the 
interpretation, by the men who knew, of that Fable on which the Fall of Man was based 
by those who have imposed on us with their ignorance, and made us blind with their 
belief. Wisdom is the renewer and renovator of all things, and it is she who confers 
immortality on man; she who is the Christ as bringer to re-birth. The Gnostic Marcus 
maintained that Charis was superior to "all things" or Totum; and Charis, the female 
Christ, was the illuminating spirit of his teaching, as when he is made to say to his 
mediums .—"Behold, Charis has descended upon thee; open thy mouth and prophesy; 
open thy mouth and thou shalt prophecy. " Apply this to the Spirit as male, instead of 
female, and you have the Christ, or illuminating spirit of Paul. It was a question of 
priority in the type, and belonged to a mystical interpretation of natural phenomena. The 



blood of Charis preceded the blood of Christ, and but for the purification by the blood of 
Charis, there would have been no doctrine of the purification of souls by the blood of 
Christ. The Eucharist was a celebration of Charis before it was assigned to the Christ. 
Again, Paul's Christ is identified with the angel Metatron, as the Messiah who followed 
the Israelites in the wilderness. Thus he makes the angel masculine. But in the 
Targumists' traditions the Well of Miriam takes the place of this sustaining Christ, who 
was the spiritual rock according to Paul. In the gospel of the Egyptians, quoted by 
Clement Alexander, the Lord says: "I am come to destroy the works of the Woman. " The 
two manifestors, male and female, are continued by the "Shepherd ofHermas, " which 
some of the Fathers regarded as a divinely inspired scripture. Here the spirit, or Logos, 
who is an old woman— z'.e., the ancient Wisdom— in one vision, becomes the son of God in 
another! Of her it is said: "She is an old woman, because she was the first of all creation, 
and the world was made by her. " Wisdom, the woman, was first; she was the mother of 
God. Christ, the son, was second; then he superseded the female in one representation; in 
another he was blended with her, and consequently portrayed in the image of both sexes, 
as a spiritual type. The Wisdom or Sophia of the Gnostics was first at the head of the 
seven pre-planetary powers, and was called "Ogdoas, " as mother of the first and inferior 
Hebdomad; next the Christ was made the head as manifestor of the seven later planetary 
powers, called by them the superior Hebdomad, he being the outcome of a later creation, 
and representative of the Fatherhood in heaven, which followed the fatherhood 
established on earth; and that same Gnostic manifestor of the seven powers or Gods had 
been Iu in Egypt, Iao in Phoenicia, Assur in Assyria, and the Buddha or Agni in India, 
ages on ages earlier. 

Now Paul was opposed to those Gnostics who exalted the feminine type of the soul— the 
female as bringer to re-birth hereafter. He repudiated it, and proclaimed his Christ. His 
Word, Logos or Messiah, is strictly masculine. In India this type would be Lingaic versus 
the Yonian. He maintains that the "Word by Wisdom knew not God. " This is exactly the 
same as saying that at one time men only recognised the motherhood in heaven, and did 
not know who were their own fathers on earth. The Lord is the spirit, the Christ is the 
spirit, he declares; not Sophia, not the wisdom of a feminine nature. Christ, he affirms, is 
both the "power and the wisdom of God. " He proclaims all the treasures of Sophia and of 
the Gnosis to be contained in the Christ, and says the Christ has been "made unto us 
Wisdom. " The Christ has taken her place. Again, his glorifying is not in fleshly Wisdom, 
not in the female Charis, but in the grace of God (2 Cor. i. 12). For the female Wisdom 
had been according to the flesh, the woman or mother being of the flesh fleshly; and 
Paul, as Gnostic or Kabbalist, had been acquainted with the fleshly Wisdom, one of 
whose mysteries appertained to feminine periodicity, which he now repudiates when he 
says: "Even though we have known Christ (or the manifestor) after the flesh, yet now we 
know so no more. " Here it cannot be pretended that Paul ever knew the personal Christ in 
the flesh, and therefore some other fact has to be encountered. However interpreted, he is 
speaking doctrinally, and not of two historic characters. Paul's is the Gnostic Christ as 
the Second Adam; the man from heaven, whose type superseded the man of earth. Paul 
knew well enough that Adam was not a man in the literal sense; he was the typical man 
of the flesh; the son of the woman; and as was the type, such was the antitype, when he 
calls his Christ the second Adam, the later spiritual type of man, and of the Father above. 
Neither were, or could be, historic personages. To use his own words, "These things are 
an allegory. " In her most occult phase the feminine messenger was a Word that could be 
made flesh; for she was the flesh-maker, the mother of Matter. But this was on 
physiological grounds alone. Hence she was superseded by the masculine messenger; the 
spirit that could never be made flesh. None but the initiated in these matters could 
possibly know what was meant by this transfer of type, and substitution of the Lord for 
the Lady, the Christ for Wisdom, the second Adam for the first. But there it is truth-like 



at the bottom of the well; the source of so much difficulty found in the depths of Paul's 
writings. And this contention of Paul on behalf of one Gnostic dogma against another 
has been made to look as if he were fervently fighting for an Historic Jesus. 
This transfer of type is not limited to Paul! For instance, the Vine was a feminine symbol. 
Wisdom says, "As the Vine brought I forth" (Ecc. xxiv. 17); and in the Book of Proverbs 
Sophia cries, "Come eat of my bread, and drink of the wine I have mingled. " The Fig- 
Tree in Egypt was the figure of the Lady of Heaven, who is pourtrayed as the Tree of 
Life and Knowledge, in the act of feeding souls. She literally gives her body as the Bread 
and her blood as the Wine of Life! In the later Ptolemeian times this Tree was assigned to 
Sophia or Wisdom! which shows the link between Egypt and Greece. The superseding of 
Sophia is also illustrated in the cursing of the fruitless Fig-tree by the Canonical Christ, 
where the Parable of Mythology is represented as a human history. In John's Gospel the 
type has been transferred, just as the sayings were, to the masculine nature, and the Christ 
becomes the bread and wine of life. In the Apocrypha it is Sophia who is "The brightness 
of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his 
goodness!" (Wisdom vii. 26.) In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Christ takes the place of 
Sophia. He is called the "effulgence of the glory" of God, the "very image of his 
substance. " Nevertheless, the male Christ could no more be made flesh in a man than 
Sophia or Charts could have previously been incarnated in an historical woman. You 
cannot understand one half without the other. Both must be taken together. The doctrine 
is doubly and wholly opposed to any and all historical personality. 

But, we have not yet completely mastered the entire Mystery of Paul for modern use; and 
it is not possible for any one but the phenomenal Spiritualist, who knows that the 
conditions of trance and clairvoyance are facts in nature; only those who have evidence 
that the other world can open and lighten with revelations, and prove its palpable 
presence, visibly and audibly; only those who except the teaching that the human 
consciousness continues in death, and emerges in a personality that persists beyond the 
grave; only such, I say, are qualified to comprehend the mystery, or receive the message, 
once truly delivered to men by the Spiritualist Paul, but which was thoroughly perverted 
by the Sarkolators, the founders of the fleshly faith. In the first place he was an Initiate in 
the Gnostic Mysteries, called Kabbalist in Hebrew. He tells us how exceedingly jealous 
for the traditions he had been, which must have included the traditional interpretation of 
the mysteries and of the Gnosis or hidden Wisdom. He was a perfected Adept. He knew 
the nature of the Kronian Christ, and of the Spiritual Christ, according to the Gnosis. 
Beyond that, Paul, on his own testimony, was an abnormal Seer, subject to the conditions 
of trance. He could not remember if certain experiences occurred to him in the body or 
out of it! This trance condition was the origin and source of his revelations, the heart of 
his mystery, his infirmity in which he gloried—in short, his "thorn in the flesh. " He shows 
the Corinthians that his abnormal condition, ecstasy, illness, madness (or what not), was a 
phase of spiritual intercourse in which he was divinely insane—insane on behalf of God- 
but that he was rational enough in his relationship to them. He says: "I will come to 
visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ fourteen years ago (whether 
in the body I know not; or whether out of the body I know not; God know eth), such an 
one caught up even in the third heaven"— on behalf of that man he will glory. "And by 
reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations, wherefore that I should not be 
exalted over much, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to 
buffet me, that I should not be exalted over much. " Paul's Thorn in the Flesh has been 
attributed to lechery, and to sore eyes; but no Christian commentator known to me has 
ever connected it with abnormal phenomena, except as miracle. The Marcionites said the 
Mystery was manifested to Paul by revelation. Paul says the same. By this abnormal 
mode the Mystery was revealed to him in person. His eyes were opened, so that he could 
see for himself the truth that was taught in the Mysteries. If a Spirit appeared in vision to 



Paul, that would positively prove the re-birth for a future life, and constitute the 
revelation of his Messianic mystery. Paul's Christ, the Lord, is the spirit; his gospel is that 
of spiritual revelation, the chief mode of manifestation being abnormal, as it was, and had 
been, in the Gnostic mysteries. 

The Gnostic Christ was the Immortal Spirit in man, which first demonstrated its existence 
by means of abnormal or spiritualistic phenomena. It did not and could not depend on any 
single manifestation in one historic personality. And when Paul says, "I knew a man in 
Christ, " we see that to be in Christ is to be in the condition of trance, in the spirit, as they 
phrased it, in the state that is common to what is now termed mediumship. 
Being in the trance condition, or in Christ, as he calls it, he was caught up to the third 
heaven, and could not determine whether he was in the body or out of the body. Here he 
identifies his Christ with a condition of being, and that condition with the abnormal 
phenomena known to some of us who have studied Modern Spiritualism. This is the 
Gnostic Christ, not the Christ of any special historic personality, who is supposed to have 
manifested only once upon a time, and once for all. The Christ of the Gnosis, of Philo and 
of Paul preceded Christianity, and is sure to supersede it, because it is based upon facts 
known in nature and verifiable to-day. It was those who were entirely ignorant of those 
subtle and obscure facts, unfolded in the Mysteries, who became Christians in the modern 
sense, and believed, because they were blind. Paul was both a Seer and a Knower. He 
became one of the public demonstrators of the facts, just like any itinerant medium of our 
time. He says to the Galatians: "Ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh, I 
preached the gospel unto you the first time, and that which was a temptation to you in my 
flesh, ye despised not nor rejected (or spat out); but ye received me as an angel of God, as 
Christ Jesus!" This infirmity of the flesh was his tendency to fall into trance. When it first 
occurred, at a given date, he received his revelation and began to preach his own gospel. 
He talked and taught as do the mediums in trance to-day. He received his revelations- 
visions and revelations of the Lord—and gave proofs of the Christ, or spirit, speaking 
within him, speaking through him, when he was in trance. And on this ground they 
received him as an angel of God— they received him as the Christ. This Christ, personated 
by Paul as the revealer in trance, was of necessity the Gnostic Christ, the Spirit of God, as 
he often calls it, the Christ that spoke through him, founded on what is now termed spirit 
control, but not based on the spirit of any Jesus of Nazareth. His Christ is the spirit which 
revealed itself abnormally in, and through him, so that he "spoke the wisdom and the 
words which the spirit teacheth; he spoke mysteries in the spirit." His Christ was the 
same spirit that "hath a diversity of workings" in various spirit manifestations. "To one it 
gives the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge; to another, faith; to 
another, gifts of healing; to another, miraculous powers; to another, prophesy; to 
another, seeing of spirits; to another, the gift of tongues, and to another, their 
interpretation. " And as this was the Christ, that always had been so manifested, nothing 
depended upon any historical character. All that was real, that is, spiritual, would be the 
same afterwards as it had been before. Nothing did depend on it, and historical 
Christianity itself is but a vast interpolation, the greatest of all obstacles to mental 
development and the unity of the human race. 

One more illustration that Paul was outside the ring of conspirators who were the 
founders, as forgers, of Historic Christianity in Rome, and I shall have done. 
The Christ proclaimed by Peter and James was the mythical Messiah of the Time-cycles, 
the ever-coming one, converted into an historical character; hence he who was supposed 
to have just come still remained the Coming One. He himself is made to say that he is 
coming before the then present generation shall have passed away. 
Apart from the mythos and its meaning, there was no other coming, or end of the Times, 
of the age, iEon, or world! The Kronian allegory can only apply to the Kronian Christ, as 
the metaphorical manifestor of the Eternal in the sphere of time, who could neither be 



made flesh nor assume historic personality. This was known to Paul as an Adept. Such 
things were an Allegory; but it was not known to those who preached that "other gospel. " 
James asserts that "the coming of the Lord is at hand. " John declares that it is the Last 
Hour. In the Second Epistle of Peter we find the writer mentions Paul by name, and 
replies to his Epistles. He is covertly trying to counteract the influence of Paul's teaching 
on a matter of such importance as the second coming of Christ, and the immediate ending 
of the world. In the first chapter he proclaims that the end of all things is at hand. Here he 
says that mockers are asking, "Where is the promise of his coming?" They forget the 
cataclysms and deluges by which the previous heavens and earth have perished. This time 
the end will come with a universal conflagration, and, according to promise, "We look for 
new heavens and a new earth. "... "Our beloved brother, Paul, has been speaking of 
these things. . . . According to the wisdom given to him he wrote unto you; as also in his 
Epistles, speaking in them in these things; wherein are some things hard to understand, 
which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest (as also the other scriptures) unto their own 
destruction. " The subject-matter here is the nature of the time-cycles, and the mythical 
destruction by flood and fire, which Paul as an Adept knew to be typical and allegorical. 
Peter mistakes them for literal realities. Being an outsider, he did not understand the 
Wisdom or Gnosis of Paul, but says it is misleading, inasmuch as the ignorant wrest it 
unto their own destruction. Peter had also said the day of the Lord will come as a thief. 
To this we have direct replies from Paul. "Concerning the times and the seasons, 
brethren, ye have no need that aught be written unto you. For yourselves know perfectly 
well that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. But ye, brethren, are not in 
darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief; for ye are all sons of light and 
sons of the day; we are not of the night nor of the darkness"— as were those foolish 
Physicalists, the Petrine A-Gnostics. And again he says to the Thessalonians— 'Wow we 
beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering 
together unto him, that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled 
either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us! as that day of the Lord is present at 
hand. Let no man beguile you in any wise; " give no heed to that ignoramus' 
gobemoucherie ! Then follows a break in the sense. But a falling away is to come first, 
and the Man of Sin must be revealed or exposed; the son of perdition, "he that oppose th 
and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he 
sitteth in the Temple of God setting himself forth as God. " That, I say, is St. Paul's 
opposer, Peter, who was set up in the Church of Rome. "Remember ye not that when I 
was with you I told you these things. And now ye know that which restraineth to the end 
that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already 
work only until he that restraineth now shall be taken out of the way. And then shall be 
revealed the Lawless one whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, 
and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming, (him) whose 'coming' is 
according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with 
all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perishing, because they received not the 
love of truth that they might be saved; and for this cause God sendeth them a working of 
error that they should believe a lie. " In both quotations the subject-matter identifies Peter 
as palpably as if Paul had named him. He is replying to the teaching of one particular 
man who is proclaiming the "Coming" of the Christ and the day of the Lord, or end of the 
world, as being close at hand. He says in effect—Do not be troubled or beguiled by any 
such ignorant trash. The Lord will not come in his sense, and cannot come in mine, 
except that man of sin be revealed. No one has ever dared to dream that this "Man of Sin" 
is Peter himself! But the person aimed at is considered capable of forging epistles in the 
name of Paul; thus attributing this kind of teaching to him, and making him father it 
whilst Paul was yet living. This "man of sin" and "son of perdition" has set himself up in 
the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. This is no emperor Nero, but a portrait of 



Peter, the life-long enemy of Paul; he whose preaching is concerning signs and lying 
wonders, such as the stories about the end of the world, the passing away of the heavens 
with a great noise, the dissolution of the elements with fervent heat, and the burning up of 
the earth with all the works therein, and other teachings of this cataclysmalist, which Paul 
denounces as delusive, and knows to be a lie! This misleader of men is restrained for the 
time being by Paul himself, but when he departs Peter will reveal himself or be revealed 
in his true colours, and the Thessalonians will then see what Paul has known all along, 
and against which he had warned them once before, i.e., against that working of error and 
belief in a lie, which we now know by name as Historic Christianity. 
It is here, then, that we can peer right down into the deep, dark gulf that divided Peter 
from Paul, of which we get such a lightning glimpse in the Clementine Homilies. These 
writings were inspired by the faction of Peter. By them Paul is designated the "Hostile 
Man"; his own epithet, Anomas, the Lawless, is there flung back at him by Peter, who 
denounces the puerile preaching of the man that is his enemy, and who says: "Thou hast 
opposed thyself as an Adversary against me, the firm rock, the foundation of the Church. " 
Paul's conversion, by means of abnormal vision, is attributed to the false Christ, the 
Gnostic and Spiritualist opposed to an Historic Christ. In Homily 17, Peter is obviously 
hitting at Paul and his visions when he asks: "Can anyone be instituted to the office of a 
teacher through visions?" Paul is treated as the arch-enemy of the Christ crucified— he is 
the very Anti-Christ. He will be the author of some great heresy which is expected to 
break out in the future. Peter is said to have declared that Christ instructed the disciples 
not to publish the only true and genuine gospel for the present, because the false teacher 
must arise, who would publicly proclaim the false gospel of the Anti-Christ that was the 
Christ of the Gnostics. "As the true Prophet has told us, the false gospel must come from 
a certain misleader; " and so they were to go on secretly promulgating the true gospel, 
until this false preacher had passed away. This true gospel was confessedly "held in 
reserve, to be secretly transmitted for the rectification of future heresies. " They knew 
well enough what had to come out, if Paul's preaching, proclaimed in his original 
Epistles, got vent more and more. It was Paul whom they had reason to fear. Hence those 
who were the followers of Peter and James anathematized him as the great apostate, and 
rejected his Epistles. Justin Martyr never once mentions this founder of Christianity, 
never once refers to the writings of Paul. Strangest thing of all is it that the book of the 
Acts, which is mainly the history of Paul, should contain no account of his martyrdom or 
death in Rome! The gulf, however, cannot be completely fathomed, except on the 
grounds that there was no personal Christ, and that Paul was the natural opponent of the 
men who were setting up the Christ made flesh for the salvation of the world that never 
was lost. My conclusion is, that fabricated evidence is the sole support of Historic 
Christianity which can be derived from the Epistles of Paul; that the manipulation for an 
ulterior purpose, which is so obvious in the book of Acts, was far more subtly and 
fundamentally applied to his Epistles and doctrines; that they have been worked over as 
thieves manipulate stolen linen when they pick out the marks of ownership to escape 
from detection; that false doctrines have been foisted into the original text, which seems 
to have been withheld for a century after the writer's death, until the leaven of falsehood 
had done its fatal work. The problem of the plotters and forgers in Rome was how to 
convert the mythical Christology into historic Christianity, and when Paul's Epistles were 
permitted to emerge from obscurity in a collection, what had occurred was the restoration 
of the carnalised Christ, that "other Jesus" who was repudiated by Paul in his own 
lifetime. Paul felt or feared, and foretold that this would be the case when once he was 
removed out of the way. He saw the mystery of lawlessness already at work—the 
falsifiers sending forth letters as if from himself— and we have seen what Paul foresaw! 
the problem of the plotters who forged the foundations of the Church in Rome was how 
to successfully blend the Christ Jesus of the Gnostics, of the pre-Christian Apocrypha, of 



Philo, and of Paul, with that Corporeal Christ and impossible personality, in whom they 
ignorantly believed, through a blind literalisation of mythology, so as to make the historic 
look like the true starting-point, and the Gnostic interpretation becomes a later heresy. 
This was finally effected when the declaration of John— that "the Word was made flesh 
and dwelt among ms"— had been accepted as the genuine Gospel, and that which had been 
an impossibility for the Gnostics was an accomplished fact for those who knew no better 
than to believe. The Gospel, according to John, was concocted and calculated to serve as 
a harmonising amalgam of doctrines that were fundamentally opposed. In this Amalgam 
they tried to mix the "gall and honey," so that, if "well shaken before taken," it might be 
swallowed by the followers on both sides. But there was a great gulf forever fixed 
between the Gnostic Christology and Historic Christianity. It was a gulf that never could 
be soundly bridged, and never has been plumbed, or bottomed, or filled in. The bodies of 
two million martyrs of free-thought, put to death as heretics, in Europe alone, and all the 
blood that has ever been shed in Christian wars, have failed to fill that gulf, which waits 
as ever wide-jawed for its prey. Across that gulf the Christian Church was erected upon 
supports on either side. On one side stood those pillars of the Church which were seen by 
Paul in Jerusalem. On the other was Paul himself, the pillar that stood alone. A difference 
the most radical and profound divided him from the other apostles, Cephas, John, and 
James. From the first they were on two sides of the chasm that could not be closed; and 
the Prcedicatio Petri declares that Peter and Paul remained unreconciled till death. The 
great work of the first centuries was how to bridge the chasm over, or at least how to 
conceal it from the eyes of the world in later times. This could only be done by resting on 
Paul as a prop and buttress on the one side and Peter on the other, which had to be done 
by converting or perverting the Epistles of the Gnostic Paul into a support for Historic 
Christianity. In that way the Church was founded. It was built as a bridge across the gulf, 
and the Pope of Rome appointed and aptly designated PontiJ ex Maximus. It was reared 
above the chasm lying darkly lurking like an open grave below, and to-day, as ever, the 
Christian world is horribly haunted with the fear that a breath or two of larger intellectual 
life, a too audible utterance of free-er thought, a dose of mental dynamite may bring the 
edifice of error down in wreck and ruin to fill that gulf at last, over which it was so 
perilously founded from the first. 



THE "LOGIAOF THE LORD;" OR, PRE-HISTORIC SAYINGS 
ASCRIBED TO JESUS THE CHRIST. 

(References to Authorities may be found in the Author's "Natural Genesis. ") 

It would take almost a life-time of original research to fathom or approximately gauge the 
depths of ignorance in which the beginnings of Historic Christianity lie sunken out of 
sight. 

The current ignorance of those pre-Christian evidences that have been preserved by the 
petrifying past must be well-nigh invincible, when a man like Professor Jowett could say, 
as if with the voice of superstition in its dotage, "To us the preaching of the Gospel is a 
New Beginning, from which we date all things; beyond which we neither desire, nor are 
able, to inquire. " 

It is the commonly accepted orthodox belief that Christianity originated with the life, 
miracles, sayings, and teachings; the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of an 
historic Jesus the Christ at the commencement of our era, called Christian; whereas, the 
origins were manifold, but mostly concealed. It is impossible to determine anything 
fundamental by an appeal to the documents which, alone out of a hundred Gospels, were 
made Canonical. And when Eusebius recorded his memorable boast that he had virtually 
made "all square" for the Christians, it was an ominous announcement of what had been 
done to keep out of sight the mythical and mystical rootage of historic Christianity. The 
Gnostics had been muzzled, and their extant evidences, as far as possible, masked. He 
and his co-conspirators did their worst in destroying documents and effacing the tell-tale 
records of the past, to prevent the future from learning what the bygone ages could have 
said directly for themselves. They made dumb all Pagan voices that would have cried 
aloud their testimony against the unparalleled imposture then being perfected in Rome. 
They had almost reduced the first four centuries to silence on all matters of the most vital 
importance for any proper understanding of the true origins of the Christian Superstition. 
The mythos having been at last published as a human history everything else was 
suppressed or forced to support the fraud. Christolatry is founded on the Christ, who is 
mythical in one phase and mystical in the other; Egyptian (and Gnostic) in both, but 
historical in neither. The Christ was a type and a title that could not become a person. As 
such, the Christ of the Gnostics was the Horus continued from Egypt and Chaldea; and 
that which was original as mythos ages earlier cannot be also original as a later personal 
history. We who commence with our canonical Gospels are three or four centuries too 
late to learn anything fundamental concerning the real beginnings of Christianity. You 
have only to turn to the second Book of Esdras to learn that Jesus the Christ of our 
canonical history was both pre-historic and, pre-Christian. This is one of the books of the 
hidden wisdom which have been rejected and set apart as the Apocrypha—considered to 
be spurious, because they are opposed to the received history; whereas, they contain the 
secret Gnosis by which alone we can identify the genuine Scripture. In this book it is 
said, "My son Jesus shall be revealed with those that are with him .... and they that 
remain shall rejoice within four hundred years; and after these years shall my son Christ 
die, and all men shall have life. " And this was to be even as it had been in the former 
judgments at the end of the particular cycles of time, and the renewal of the world, which 
was to occur according to date! Now, if an historic Jesus Christ of prophecy is to be 
found anywhere it is here, —foretold even as the prediction is supposed to have been 
fulfiled. Yet these books are not included among the canonical Scriptures, because they 
prove too much; because they are historical in the wrong sense,— i.e., they are not and 



could not be made humanly historical; their Jesus Christ is entirely mythical,~is the 
Kronian Christ; and his future coming therein announced was only the subject of 
astronomical prophecy. The true Christ, whether mythical or mystical, astronomical or 
spiritual, never could become an historical personage, and never did originate in any 
human history. The types of themselves suffice to prove that the Christ was, and could 
only be, typical, and never could have taken form in historic personality. For one thing, 
the mystical Christ of the Gnosis and of the pre-Christian types was a being of both 
sexes, as was the Egyptian Horus and other of the Messiahs; because the mystical Christ 
typified the spirit or soul which belongs to the female as well as to the male, and 
represents that which could only be a human reality in the spiritual domain or the 
Pleroma of the Gnostics. This is the Christ who appears as both male and female in the 
Book of Revelation. And the same biune type was continued in the Christian portraits of 
the Christ. In Didron's Iconography you will see that Jesus Christ is portrayed as a female 
with the beard of a male, and is called Jesus Christ as Saint Sophia, --i.e., the Wisdom, or 
the Spirit of both sexes. The early Christians were ignorant of this typology; but the types 
still remain to be interpreted by the Gnosis and to bear witness against the History. Both 
the type and doctrine combine to show there could be no one personal Christ in this world 
or any other. Howsoever the written word may lie, the truth is visibly engraved upon the 
stones, and still survives in the Icons, symbols, and doctrines of the Gnostics, which 
remain to prove that they preserved the truer tradition of the origines. And so this 
particular pre-Christian type was continued as a portrait of the historic Christ. It can be 
proved that the earliest Christians known were Gnostics—the men who knew, and who 
never did or could accept Historic Christianity. The Essenes were Christians in the 
Gnostic sense, and according to Pliny the elder, they were a Hermetic Society that had 
existed for ages on ages of time. Their name is best explained as Egyptian. They were 
known as the Eshai, the healers or Therapeutee, the physicians in Egypt; and Esha or 
Usha means to doctor or heal, in Egyptian. The Sutites, the Mandaites, the Nazarites, as 
well as the Docetae and Elkesites, were all Gnostic Christians; they all preceded, and 
were all opposed to, the cult of the carnalised Christ. The followers of Simon, the 
Samaritan, were Gnostic Christians, and they were of the Church at Antioch, where it is 
said the name of Christian was primarily applied. Cerinthus was a Gnostic Christian, 
who, according to Epiphanius, denied that Christ had come in the flesh. The same writer 
informs us that, at the end of the fourth century, there were Ebionite Christians, whose 
Christ was the mythical fulfiler of the time-cycles, not an historic Jesus. Even Clement 
Alexander confesses that his Christ was of a nature that did not require the nourishment 
of corporeal food. 

Now, from the time of Ireneeus to that of Mansell, it has been confidently asserted that 
Gnosticism was a heresy of the second century, a backsliding and apostacy from the true 
faith of historic Christianity. This is simply a delusion of the ignorant, founded on the 
original lie of the falsifiers! Later teachers of Gnosticism, such as Basilides and 
Saturninus, did arise during the second century; but these were not the founders of any 
fresh doctrines, nor did they make any new departure. They were Revivalists! The 
Christian Fathers only knew of the Gnostics of their time; they never troubled to trace the 
roots of Gnosticism in the remoter past. 

The Christian report respecting the Gnostics, Docetae, and others, always assumes the 
human reality of the supposed history, and then explains the non-human interpretation of 
the Gnostics themselves as an heretic denial, or perversion of the alleged facts. Hence the 
Gnostics are charged by Irenaeus with falsifying the oracles of God, and trying to 
discredit the word of revelation with their own wicked inventions. 

We learn from Origen that, during the third century, there were various different versions 
of Matthew's gospel in circulation, and this he attributes partly to the forgers of gospels. 
Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, asserts the same thing; and of the Latin versions 



he says, there were as many different texts as manuscripts. The Gnostics, who had 
brought on the original and pre-Christian matter of the mysteries that were taught orally, 
no sooner placed it on record than they were said to be forging the Scriptures of Anti- 
Christ, whereas it was the Gnosis of the Ante-Christ of whom they, the Christians, were 
ignorant. 

Theirs is altogether a false mode of describing the position of those who always and 
utterly denied that the Christ could be made flesh, to suffer and die upon a veritable cross. 
Here is a specimen of the way in which the Gnostic doctrines had been turned to historic 
account: —The true light which lighteth every man coming into the world was Gnostic, 
and had been Gnostic ages before the prologue of John was written; and as Gnostic 
doctrine it has to be read. This Light of the world, born, as the Gnostics held, with every 
one coming into the world, is the immortal principle in man! Hyppolytus, referring to the 
teaching of Basilides, a Gnostic teacher of the second century, shows us how the doctrine 
of the Gnostics was falsified. "And this, " says he, "it is which is said in the Gospels, 'The 
true light which lighteth every man was coming into the world!'" "Was coming" is an 
interpolation of the believers in the fact of historic fulfilment applied to that eternal light 
which lighted every man coming into the world; the light that dawned within, and could 
not come without in any form of flesh or historic personality. The Emperor Julian also 
remarks on the monstrous doings and fraudulent machinations of the fabricators of 
Historic Christianity. We may look upon the Gnostics as Inside Christians; the others as 
Christians Without. 

Never were mortals more perplexed, bewildered, and taken back, than the Christians of 
the second, third, and fourth centuries, who had started from their own new beginning, 
warranted to be solely historic, when they found that an apparition of their faith was 
following them one way and confronting them in another—a faith not founded on their 
alleged facts, claiming to be the original religion, and ages on ages earlier in the world—a 
shadow that threatened to steal away their substance, mocking them with its aerial 
unreality— the hollow ghost of that body of truth which they had embraced as a solid and 
eternal possession! It was horrible. It was devilish. It was the devil, they said; and so they 
sought to account for Gnosticism, and fight down their fears of the phantom terrifying 
them in front and rear: the Gnostic ante-Christ who had now become their anti-Christ. 
The only primitive Christians then apart from, or preceding, the Christianised pagan 
church of Rome, were the various sects of Gnostics, not one of which was founded on an 
historical Christ. One and all they based upon the mystical Christ of the Gnosis, and the 
mythical Messiah,— Him who should come because he was the Ever-Coming One, as a 
type of the Eternal, manifesting figuratively in time. Historic Christianity can furnish no 
sufficient reason why the biography of its personal founder should have been held back; 
why the facts of its origin should have been kept dark; and why there should have been 
no authorised record made known earlier. The conversion of the mythos, and of the 
Docetic doctrines of the Gnosis into human history, alone will account for the fatal fact. 
The truth is, the earliest gospels are the furthest removed from the supposed human 
history. That came last; and only when the spiritual Christ of the Gnosis had been 
rendered concrete in the density of Christian ignorance! Christianity began as Gnosticism 
continued, by means of a conversion and perversion, that were opposed in vain by Paul. 
The mysteries of the Gnostics were continued, with a difference, as Christian. The newly christened 
re-beginnings were not only shrouded in mystery, they were the same 
mysteries at root as those that were pre-extant. The first Christians founded on secret 
doctrines that were only explained to initiates during a long course of years. These 
mysteries were never to be divulged or promulgated until the belief in historic 
Christianity had taken permanent root. We are told how it was held by some that the 
Apocrypha ought only to be read by those who were perfected, and that these writings 
were reserved exclusively for the Christian adepts. It must be obvious that the doctrine or 



knowledge that was forced to be kept so sacredly secret as that, could have had no 
relation to the human history, personality, or teachings of an inspired founder of that 
primitive Christianity supposed to have had so simple an origin. True history is not 
established in that way, although the false may be—as it has been. Nobody was allowed 
by Peter to interpret anything except in accordance with "our tradition!" Nobody, says 
Justin Martyr, is permitted to partake of the Eucharist "unless he accepts as true that 
which is taught by w^"— and unless he received the bread and wine as the very flesh and 
blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. In this we see the forgers fighting against the 
Gnostic Christ. There were many sects of so-called Christians, and various versions of 
the Christ; whether Kronian, mythical, or mystical. But the Church of Rome was the 
Christian church with foundations in Egypt; hence the deities of Egypt which have been 
discovered at the foundations of Rome; and when historic Christianity hasn't a bit of 
ground left to stand upon, the Church of Rome will be able and prepared to say, "We 
never did really stand on that ground, and now we alone can stand without it. We are the 
one true church with foundations in an illimitable past. " 

According to the unquestioned tradition of the Christian Fathers, which has always been 
accepted by the Church, the primary nucleus of our canonical gospels was not a life of 
Jesus at all, but a collection of the Logia, oracles, or sayings, the Logia Kuriaka, which 
were written down in Hebrew or Aramaic, by one Matthew, as the scribe of the Lord. 
Clement Alexander, Origen, and Irenaeus agree in stating that Matthew's was the primary 
gospel. This tradition rests upon the testimony of Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, and friend 
of Polycarp, who is said to have suffered martyrdom for his faith during the reign of 
Marcus Aurelius, about 165-167 AD. Papias is named with Pantoeus, Clement, and 
Ammonius as one of the ancient interpreters who agreed to understand the Hexaemeron as 
referring to an historic Christ and the Church. He was a believer in the millennium, and 
the second coming of the Lord, and therefore a literaliser of mythology. But there is no 
reason to suspect the trustworthiness of his testimony, as he no doubt believed these 
"sayings" to have been the spoken words of an historic Jesus, written down in Hebrew by 
a personal follower named Matthew. He wrote a work on the subject, entitled Logion 
Kuriakon Exegesis, a commentary on the sayings of the Lord. A surviving fragment of 
this last work, quoted by Eusebius, tells us that Matthew wrote the sayings in the Hebrew 
dialect, and each one of the believers interpreted them as he was best able. Thus, the 
beginning of the earliest gospel was not biographical. It was no record of the life and 
doings of Jesus; it contained no actual historic element, nothing more than the Sayings of 
the Lord. 

It is not pretended that our gospel, according to Matthew, is the identical work of the 
scribe who first wrote down the logia, but the statement of Papias is so far corroborated 
inasmuch as the sayings ascribed to Jesus are the basis of the Book. We read "When Jesus 
had finished these sayings, " or parables, several times over. Now, there is plenty of 
evidence to show that these sayings, which are the admitted foundations of the canonical 
gospels, were not first uttered by a personal Founder of Christianity, nor invented 
afterwards by any of his followers. Many of them were pre-extant, pre-historic, and prechristian. 
And if it can be proved that these oracles of God and Logia of the Lord are not 
original, if they can be identified as a collection, an ollapodrida of Egyptian, Hebrew, 
and Gnostic sayings, they can afford no evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels ever lived 
as an historic teacher. To begin with, two of the sayings assigned to Matthew to Jesus as 
the personal teacher of men are these .—"Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth, " 
etc., and, "If ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you"\ 
But these sayings had already been uttered by the feminine Logos called Wisdom, in the 
Apocrypha. We find them in the Book of Ecclesiasticus; "Lay up thy treasure according 
to the Commandments of the Most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold, " 
and "Forgive thy neighbour the hurt that he hath done thee, so shall thy sins also be 



forgiven when thouprayest"! Wisdom was the Sayer personified long anterior to the 
Christ. But it has never been pretended or admitted by mankind that wisdom was ever 
incarnated on this earth as a woman! Yet Wisdom, or Charis, had the primary right to 
incarnation, for she preceded the Christ. Luke also quotes a saying of Wisdom— 
"Therefore also said the Wisdom of God, 7 will send them prophets and apostles, and 
some of them they shall slay and persecute '; " "that the blood of all the prophets which 
was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation. " This also 
is quoted or adapted from the words of Wisdom recorded in a Book of Wisdom (Esdras 
2nd), where we read "I sent unto you my servants, the prophets, whom ye have taken and 
slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, said the 
Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, your house is desolate"\ In the verses immediately 
preceding, the speaker in the Book of Esdras had said. "Thus saith the Almighty Lord, 
Have I not prayed you as a Father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her 
young babes, that ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my 
children, and I should be your Father? I gathered you together as a hen gathereth her 
chickens under her wings; but now what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out. " This is 
in one of the Books of Wisdom hidden away in our Apocrypha. Now, if we turn to the 
gospels of Luke and Matthew we shall find that they have quoted these words of 
Wisdom: but we now see that Wisdom is not credited with her own sayings concerning 
the Father God! On the contrary, they are given to an historic Christ, as a personal teacher 
and a prophet. That which was said of the house of Israel by Wisdom in Esdras is now 
applied to the city of Jerusalem by the Christ; and if you re-date a saying like that by a 
few hundred years there is little wonder if it dislocates the history. Paul likewise quotes 
the saying from the Book of Esdras when he says, "I will receive you and will be to you a 
Father, and ye shall be to me Sons and Daughters saith the Lord Almighty. " But he does 
not refer or re-apply it to Jesus as is done in the Gospels! Here we see the current coinage 
of Wisdom has been defaced by the Gospel compilers—not by Paul— and then re-issued 
under the sign and superscription of another name, that of Jesus the Christ; and historic 
evidence of a nature like that is as futile as the negro's non-effective charge of gunpowder 
which he shrewdly suspected of having been fired off before. Paul likewise quotes or 
refers to one of the sayings found in Matthew. "Faithful is the saying, " he writes to 
Timothy. But although he is speaking of the Christ, he does not say his saying, nor refer it 
to an historic teacher. 

It was one of the sayings, or true words, called the "Logia," which had been the dark 
sayings and parables of the pre-christian mysteries from of old, and which in Egypt were 
the sayings of Truth herself. The Hebrew Psalmist says, "I will utter dark sayings of old. " 
The Proverbs of Solomon are the sayings. The Jewish Haggadah were the sayings. The 
Commandments were sayings, as is shown by Paul, Rom. xiii. 9. Peter, in the Clementine 
Recognitions, does not pretend to "pronounce the sayings of the Lord as spoken by 
himself (or profess that they were spoken by himself in person, as I read the passage), he 
admits that it is not in their commission to say this. But they are to teach and to show 
from the sayings how every one of them is based upon truth. This is in reply to Simon 
Magus, who has pointed out the contradictory nature of the sayings. I hold it only to be a 
matter of time and research to prove that the sayings in general assigned to Jesus, which 
are taken to demonstrate his historic existence as a personal teacher, were pre-extant, prehistoric, 
and pre-christian. One of the sayings in the Mysteries reported by Plato was, 
"Many are the Thyrsus-bearers but few are the Mystics, " which is echoed twice over by 
Matthew in the saying, "Many are called but few are chosen. " "It is more blessed to give 
than to receive, " is one of the Logia of the Lord quoted in the book of Acts, but not found 
in the Gospels. Two of the sayings are identified as Essenic by Josephus, who says the 
Essenes swear not at all, but whatsoever they say is firmer than an oath; and when Jesus 
says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, " there was 



certainly nothing new in that which had been a command and a practice of the Essenes 
ages before. Men knew who were the Essenes by their love for one another. Some of the 
parables appear in the Talmud, amongst them are those of the Wise and Unwise Builders 
and that of the Marriage Feast. Various sayings are collected from the Talmud, such as 
the golden rule, "Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you. " "Love thy 
neighbour as thyself." "With the measure we mete we shall be measured again. " "Let thy 
yea be just and thy nay be likewise just. " "Whoso looketh upon the wife of another with a 
lustful eye is considered as if he had committed adultery. " "Be of them that are 
persecuted, not of them that persecute. " But as Deutsch has said, to assume that the 
Talmud borrowed these from the New Testament would be like assuming that Sanskrit 
sprang from Latin. 

The nature of the "Sayings" is acknowledged by Irenasus when he says, "According to no 
one Saying of the heretics is the word of God made flesh. " That is the Sayings which 
were current among the Gnostics as Knowers. Marcion knew and quoted the Gnostic 
saying which was afterwards amplified and quoted in John's Gospel— 'Wo one knew the 
father save the son, nor the son save the father, and he to whom he will reveal him. " This 
is a Gnostic saying, and it involves the Gnostic doctrine which cannot be understood 
independently of the Gnosis. It is quoted as one of the sayings before it was reproduced 
in the Gospel according to John. 

Such sayings were the Oral teachings in all the mysteries ages before they were written 
down. Some of them are so ancient as to be the common property of several nations. 
Prescott gives a few Mexican sayings; one of these, also found in the Talmud and the 
New Testament, is called the "the old proverb. " "As the old proverb says— 'Whoso 
regards a woman with curiosity commits adultery with his eyes. '" And the third 
commandment according to Buddha is— "Commit no adultery, the law is broken by even 
looking at the wife of another man with lust in the mind. " Amongst other sayings 
assigned to Buddha we find the one respecting the wheat and the tares. 
Another is the parable of the sower. Buddha likewise told of the hidden treasure which 
may be laid up by a man and kept securely where a thief cannot break in and steal; the 
treasure that a man may carry away with him when he goes. The story of the rich young 
man who was commanded to sell all he had and give to the poor is told of Buddha. It is 
reported that he also said— "You may remove from their base the snowy mountains, you 
may exhaust the waters of the ocean, the firmament may fall to earth, but my words in the 
end will be accomplished. " 

Some of Buddha's sayings are uttered in the same character as that of the canonical 
Christ. For example, when speaking of his departure Buddha, like the Christ, promises to 
send the Paraclete, even the spirit of truth, who shall bear witness of him and lead his 
followers to the truth. The Gnostic Horus says the same things in the same character, and 
these sayings, by whomsoever uttered, carry the mythical character with them. The 
sayings of Krishna as well as those of the Buddha are frequently identical with those of 
the Christ. I am the letter A, cries the one. I am the Alpha and Omega (or the A.O.), 
exclaims the other. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end, says Krishna— "I am the 
Light, I am the Life, I am the Sacrifice. " Speaking of his disciples, he affirms that they 
dwell in him and he dwells in them. 

The attitude of the Sayer as the personal reveal er, the veritable and visible image of the 
hidden God in the Gospels, is that of the mythical Horus, the representative of Osiris— of 
Iu as manifestor of Atum, and of Khunsu as the son of Amen-Ra, who was the hidden 
God by name. The status had been attained, and the stand was occupied by the mythical 
divinity, and no room was left for a human Claimant many centuries later. If we take the 
transfiguration on the Mount, Buddha ascended the mountain in Ceylon called Pandava 
or Yellow- White. There the heaven opened, and a great light was in full flood around 
him, and the glory of his person shone forth with "double power. " He "shone as the 



brightness of Sun and Moon. " This was the transfiguration of Buddha, identical with that 
of the Christ, and both are the same as that of Osiris in his ascent of the Mount of the 
Moon. The same scene of the temptation on the Mount was previously pourtrayed in the 
Persian account of the Devil tempting Zarathustra, and inviting him to curse the Good 
Belief. But these several forms of the one character do not meet, and did not originate in 
any human history—lived either in Egypt, India, Persia, or Judea. They only meet in the 
Mythos, which may be traced to a common origin in Egypt, where we can delve down to 
the real root of the matter. Astronomical mythology claims, and Egypt can account for, at 
least 30,000 years of time; and that alone will explain these relationships and likenesses 
found on the surface by an original identity at root. The myths of Christianity and 
Buddhism had a common origin, and branched from the same root in the soil of Egypt, 
whence emanated several dogmas, like that of the Immaculate virgin motherhood, and the 
divine child who is the ancestral soul self-reproduced. And in company with the doctrines 
we naturally find a few of the sayings of the Buddha, which have often been paralleled 
with some of those assigned to the Christ. 

The Logia or sayings are the mythoi in Greek. They were mythical sayings assigned to 
Sayers, who were also mythical in that mythology which preceded and accounts for our 
Theology and Christology. The sayings were the oral wisdom, and, as the name implies, 
that wisdom was uttered by word of mouth alone. They existed before writing, and were 
not allowed to be written afterwards. The mode of communicating them in the Mysteries, 
as in Masonry, was from mouth to ear; and, in passing, it may be remarked that the war 
of the Papacy against Masonry is because it is a survival of the pre-Christian Mysteries, 
and a living, however imperfect, witness against Historic Christianity! Mythos or myth 
denotes anything delivered by word of mouth, myth and mouth being identical at root. 
Now, as the mouth of utterance preceded the word that was uttered, it follows that the 
first form of the sayer or Logos was female, and that the feminine wisdom was first, 
although she has not yet been made flesh. The mother was primordial, and the earliest 
soul or spirit was attributed to her; she was the mouth, utterer, or sayer, long before the 
sayings were assigned to the male Logos or Christ. Thus in the Apocrypha, as in other 
Gnostic books, the sayings of Wisdom are found which have been made counterfeit in the 
mouth of the Christ made historic. She was the primal type of Wisdom, who built her 
house with the Seven Pillars, and who was set in the heavens as Kefa, later Sefekh, and 
latest Sophia. She is called the Living Word or Logos at Ombos, because as her 
constellation, the Great Bear, turned round annually, it told the time of the year. She is 
pourtrayed in the planisphere with her tongue hanging out to show that she is the 
mouthpiece of time who utters the Word. Wisdom was also the earliest teller of human 
time. In her mystical phase she told the time for the sexes to come together. Thus, on the 
ground of natural phenomena, the Logia were first uttered by the Lady, and not by the 
Lord. This is the woman who has been so badly abused by those who desired to dethrone 
her; the primitive protestants who set up the male image in her place and on her pedestal. 
In Egypt the Sayings were assigned to various divinities, that is mythical characters. One 
of these was the Solar God Iu-em-hept, the Egyptian Jesus, who was the son of Arum, 
and who is called "the Eternal Word" in the "Book of the Dead. " After these sayings had 
been recorded it is said of them in a text at least 5000 years old, "I have heard the words 
of Iu-em-hept and Har-ta-tef as it is said in their sayings!" The Osirian form of the "the 
Lord" who utters the Logia in the Egyptian Ritual is Horus, he whose name signifies the 
Lord. 

I cannot prove that sets of the sayings of the Lord, as Horus, were continued intact up to 
the time of Papias. Nor is that necessary. For, according to the nature of the hidden 
wisdom they remained oral and were not intended to be written down. They were not 
collected to be published as historic until the mysteries had come to an end or, on one line 
of their descent, were merged in Christianity. But a few most significant ones may be 



found in the Book of the Dead. In one particular passage the speaker says he has given 
food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and a boat to the 
shipwrecked; and, as the Osirified has done these things, the Judges say to him, "Come, 
come in peace, " and he is welcomed to the festival which is called "Come thou to me. " 
Those who have done these things on earth are held to have done them to Horus, the 
Lord; and they are invited to come to him as the blessed ones of his father Osiris. In this 
passage we have not only the sayings reproduced by Matthew, but also the drama and the 
scenes of the Last Judgment represented in the Great Hall of Justice, where a person is 
separated from his sins, and those who have sided with Sut against Horus are transformed 
into goats. Here it is noticeable that Matthew only of the four Evangelists represents this 
drama of the Egyptian Ritual! Among the sayings of Jesus, or Logia of the Lord, is the 
saying that "the very hairs of your head are numbered; " and in the Ritual every hair is 
weighed; also the night of the judgment-day is designated that of "weighing a hair. " 
Various chapters of the Ritual are the "sayings. " They are preceded by the formula, "said 
by the deceased, " or "said to the deceased. " Horus, the Lord, is the divine Sayer. "Says 
Horus" is a common statement; and the souls repeat his sayings. He is the Lord by name, 
and therefore his are the original sayings, or Logia of the Lord. These sayings, or Logia 
of the Lord, were written by Hermes or Taht, the Scribe of the Gods, and they constituted 
the original Hermean or inspired Scriptures, which the Book of the Dead declares were 
written in Hieroglyphics by the finger of Hermes himself. This Recorder of the sayings is 
said to have power to grant the Makheru to the Solar God—that is, the gift of speaking the 
Truth by means of the Word, because he is the Registrar of the "sayings"-- -the scribe of 
the wisdom uttered orally, the means, therefore, by which the Word was made Truth to 
men; not flesh in human form. This is the part assigned to Matthew, the called one, the 
Evangelist and Scribe, who first wrote down the Logia, or sayings of the Lord. Now, the 
special name or title of Hermes in the particular character of the Recorder and Registrar 
in the Hall of the Double Truth, or Justice, is Matthew in Egyptian—that is, Matiu. And 
my claim is not only that the primary Logia of the Lord were the sayings of Horus, whose 
name means "the lord, " but also that the Matthew who, according to the testimony of 
Papias, first wrote down the Logia of the Lord, was none other than Matiu, or Hermes, 
the recorder of the sayings in the Egyptian Ritual, who has been made an historic 
personage in the Canonical Gospel in exact accordance with the humanising of the 
Mythical Christ. 

One mode of manipulating the sayings, and making out a history is apparent, and can be 
followed. This was by looking it out in the alleged Hebrew prophecies, and inserting it 
piecemeal between the groups of sayings. There is proof that, with the sayings as primary 
data, the history of the Canonical Gospel, according to Matthew, was written on the 
principle of fulfiling the supposed prophecies found in the Old Testament, or elsewhere. 
The compiler was too uninstructed to know that the prophecies themselves belonged 
entirely to the Astronomical Allegory, and never did or could relate to forthcoming 
events that were to be fulfiled in human history; and never were supposed to do so, 
except by the ignorant, who knew no better, and who, in fact, thought the zodiacal Virgin 
had brought forth her child on earth; which could only be born, and that figuratively, in 
heaven. Those who did know better, whether Jews, Samaritans, Essenes, or Gnostics, 
entirely repudiated the historic interpretation, and did not become Christians. They could 
no more join the ignorant, fanatical Salvation Army in the first century than we can in the 
nineteenth. The so-called prophecies not only supply a raison d'etre for the history in the 
gospels, the events and circumstances themselves are manufactured one after another 
from the prophecies and sayings— that is, from the mythos which was pre-extant, in the 
course of the literalisation into a human life, and the localisation in Judea, under the 
pretext, or in the blind belief, that the impossible had come to pass. Justin Martyr's great 
appeal for historical proofs is made to the Old Testament prophecies; and so is 



Matthew's. According to him, Jesus was born at Bethlehem in order that it might be 
fulfiled which was said by Micah that a Governor and Shepherd for Israel should come 
out of Bethlehem in Judea. That was in the Celestial Bethlehem or House of Bread-Corn, 
the zodiacal sign of the Fishes, where the mythical Messiah was to be reborn about the 
year 255 B.C. 

Again, the young child was only taken to Nazareth that it might be fulfiled which was 
spoken by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene. And yet he would no more 
become a Nazarene in that way than a man could become a horse by being born in a 
stable. Jesus came to dwell in Capernaum, on the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that a 
saying of Isaiah's might be fulfiled! 

He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfiled 
which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet. For the same impotent reason he charged his 
followers not to make him known to men as the Christ! He taught the multitude in 
parables only that it might be fulfiled which had been spoken by the prophet. Although 
Jesus wrought his miracles, and did so many wonderful works, yet the people believed 
not on him, because Isaiah had previously said: "Lord! who hath believed our report? 
and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this cause (or on this account) 
they could not believe! And where, then, was the sense in expecting them to believe? 
Jesus only sent the two disciples to steal the ass and colt, that it might be fulfiled which 
was spoken by the prophet Zechariah. The choosing of Judas as one of the disciples, and 
his consequent treachery, do but occur in the Gospels, because it had been written by the 
Psalmist: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, 
hath lifted up his heel against me!" which refers to an identifiably Egyptian Mythos. In 
another Psalm assigned to David, the speaker cries: "My God! my God! why hast thou 
forsaken me! They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. " And in 
another he exclaims: "They gave me also gall for meat; and in my thirst they gave me 
vinegar to drink. " And these sayings, which were pre-extant and pre-applied, constitute 
the Christian record of the historic crucifixion! It cannot be pretended that they are 
prophecies. The transactions and sayings in the Psalms are personal to the speaker there 
and then, whether Mythical or Historical, and not to any future sufferer; and the 
tremendous transactions pourtrayed in the Gospels are actually based upon a repetition of 
that which had already occurred! When Jesus is represented by John as being in his 
death-agony, he only said, "I thirst, " in order that the Scripture might be fulfiled— and not 
because he was thirsty! —the Scripture being these Sayings previously attributed to the 
psalmist David. The earlier sayings are repeated as the later doings, and the non-historical 
is finally the sole evidence for the Historical. When the Roman soldiers had crucified 
Jesus they took the vesture that was without a seam, and said: "Let us not rend it, but cast 
lots for it, " that the Scripture might be fulfiled which saith: "They parted my garments 
among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. " Such was the familiarity of the 
Roman soldiers with the Jewish Scriptures, and such their respect for them, that they 
could do nothing that was not laid down in the Hebrew Writings to be interpreted as 
prophecy! And in such a desperate way the prophecies had to be fulfiled in order that the 
History might be written. In the first place the sayings are not original, not personal to 
any historical Jesus, and yet they are the acknowledged foundations of the four gospels. 
Therefore in them we have the foundations laid independently of any supposed Founder 
of Christianity. Next, we have more or less seen how a part of the history superimposed 
on the sayings first collected by Matthew was extracted piecemeal from the parables, 
oracles, alleged prophecies, and un-alleged Mythos of the Old Testament; and thus we 
get upon the track of the compilers, and can trace their method of working from the 
matter of the Mythos. Now, when we find, and can identify, the skeleton of some 
particular person, we have got the foundation of the man, no matter where the rest of him 
may be—recoverable or not. So is it with the Christ of our Canonical Gospels. The 



mythical Christ is the skeleton, and that is identifiably Egyptian. This mythical Christ, as 
Horus, was continued in the more mystical phase as the Horus of the Gnostics. The 
Gnostic Rituals repeat the matter, names, symbols, and doctrines found in some later 
chapters of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Gnostics supply the missing links 
between the oral sayings and the written Word; between the Egyptian and the Canonical 
Gospels; between the Matthew who wrote down the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew or 
Aramaic, and the Matiu who is said to have written the Ritual in hieroglyphics with the 
very finger of Hermes himself. The Gnostics were the knowers by name; their artists 
perpetuated the Egyptian types; and the original myths, symbols, and doctrines now 
recovered from the buried land of Egypt vouch for their knowledge of the mysteries 
which lurk in the sayings, parables, events, and characters that have been gathered up in 
our Gospels, to be naturalised and re-issued in an historic narrative as the fulfilment of 
prophecy. They inherited the Gnosis of Egypt, which remained unwritten, and therefore 
was unknown to the Christians in general; the mysteries that were performed in secret, 
and the science kept concealed. The Gnostics complained, and truly maintained, that their 
mysteries had been made mundane in the Christian Gospels; that celestial persons and 
celestial scenes, which could only belong to the pleroma— could only be explained by the 
secret wisdom or gnosis— had been transferred to earth and translated into a human 
history; that their Christ, who could not be made flesh, had been converted into an 
historical character; that their Anthropos was turned into the Son of Man—according to 
Matthew— Monogenes into the Only-begotten, according to John, their Hemorrhoidal 
Sophia into the woman who suffered from the issue of blood, the mother of the seven 
inferior powers into Mary Magdalene possessed by her seven devils, and the twelve 
^Eons into the twelve Apostles. Thus, the Gnostics enable us to double the proof which 
can be derived directly and independently from Egypt. They claim that the miracle of the 
man who was born blind, and whose sight was restored by Jesus, was their mystery of the 
JEon, who was produced by the Only-begotten as the sightless creature of a soulless 
Creator. Irenaeus, in reporting this, makes great fun of the Word that was born blind! He 
did not know that this Gnostic mystery was a survival of the Egyptian myth of the two 
Horuses, one of whom was the blind Horus, who exclaims in his blindness— "I come to 
search for mine eyes, " and has his sight restored at the coming of the Second Horus— the 
light of the world. Nor did he dream that the two-fold Horus would explain why the blind 
man in our Gospels should be single in one version and two-fold in another account of 
the same miracle. The Gnostic Horus came to seek and to save the poor lost mother, 
Sophia, who had wandered out of the pleroma, and the Gnostics identified this myth with 
the statement assigned to Jesus when he said he had only come after that lost sheep which 
was gone astray. For, as Irenaeus says, they explain the wandering sheep to mean their 
mother. This shows how the character of the Christ was limited to the mould of the 
Mythos and the likeness of Horus. But the lost sheep of the House of Israel has not yet 
found Jesus. 

The very same transactions and teachings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are assigned to 
the Gnostic Christ, who, like the Egyptian Horus, is the Sayer in heaven, or within the 
pleroma, and not upon our earth. And, in the Gospel according to John, we have Jesus 
identifying himself as the Son of Man which is in heaven, whilst at the same time he is 
represented as talking and teaching the Gnosis of the mysteries on earth. He tells 
Nicodemus, who came to him by night, that "No man hath ascended into heaven but he 
that descended out of heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven, " as was Anthropos 
when he taught the twelve according to the Gnostic account of the transactions within the 
pleroma. Also, the twelve ^Eons are addressed in the language of the Gnosis when Jesus 
says to the twelve— "Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the 
beginning. " They tell us, says Irenaeus, that the knowledge communicated by the Christ to 
the iEons within the pleroma has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of 



receiving it; but it was mystically made known, by means of parables, to those who were 
qualified for receiving it. The Gnostic Christ reveals the mysteries of the kingdom of 
heaven to the twelve ^Eons in parables. And in the Gospel the Christ speaks to the twelve 
in parables only, and to them alone is it given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
heaven. In this process of converting the mythical into the historical we are told that 
Jesus, the very Son of God, was sent into the world to teach and enlighten and save 
mankind, and yet he spoke his teaching in parables which the people could not, and were 
not intended to, understand. "All these things spake Jesus in parables to the multitude; 
and without a parable spake he nothing unto them, " in order that it might be fulfiled 
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter 
things hidden from the foundation of the world!" He spoke to the multitudes in this wise, 
so that they might not understand. Yet in the chapter following it is said— "He called to 
him the multitude (not the disciples) and said unto them, Hear and understand, " and 
immediately uttered a dark saying. We are also told that the common people heard him 
gladly! In another instance, as crucial as it is interesting—illustrative of the way in which 
the mythical, the Kronian Christ, was made human as the instructor of man— it is said as 
Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately, and asked him to 
tell them about his coming in the clouds at the end of the world. And amongst other 
things they are to do, he says,— Let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains. Let 
him that is on the house-tops not go down. But what sense is there in advising any such 
mode of escape from the great tribulation and catastrophe which involved the end of the 
world? There would not be much advantage on the house-top or even the hill-top if the 
stars were falling from heaven, with the firmament raining all round with flames, and the 
end of all things had indeed come. We might just as well seek refuge at the top of a fireescape. 
And they are to pray that their flight may not be in winter, or on the Sabbath, as if 
it could possibly matter to any mortal in what season of the year, or day of the week, such 
a catastrophe should occur. The final explanation of all such foolishness is that the matter 
is mythical, and, of course, it refuses to be realised in any such literal way. The parable 
never meant the end of this world; the literalisers of the mythos thought it did. That was 
only a false inference of ignorant belief. But such are the foundations of the faith. Such 
desperate dilemmas as these are the inevitable result of representing the Mythical Sayer 
in heaven as an historical teacher on earth. 

The two chief abiding places to which the peripatetic Christ retires are called "the 
Mountain" and "the Desert. " These localities in the Egyptian mythos are the upper and 
lower heavens, otherwise the mount of the equinox and the wilderness of the underworld; 
and where John cries in the wilderness, Aan or Anup howled in the desert. Now, 
according to Egyptian thought and mode of expression the dead are those who are on the 
mountain; the living are those who are in the valley or on the earth. Horus on earth, or in 
the valley, is mortal, the child of the immaculate mother Isis alone. Horus on the 
mountain is spiritualised as the son of the Father Osiris, in whose power he overcomes 
the devil. Sut or Satan has the best of it down in the wilderness, and Horus conquers up 
on the mount, in the day of their Great Battle. Jesus undergoes the same change as Horus 
does in his baptism. He likewise becomes the son of the Father, and in the strength of his 
adultship he ascends the mountain and becomes the vanquisher of Satan. This typical 
mountain is a pivot on which a good deal may be said to turn. The contest between Jesus 
and Satan, called the temptation on the Mount, is pourtrayed upon the monuments in a 
scene where Horus and Sut contend for supremacy, and at last agree to divide the whole 
world between them. Horus takes the south, and Sut the north, called the hinder part, 
where Jesus says,— "Get thee behind me, Satan!" The devil's long tail is an extant sign of 
this hinder part, which was typified in Egypt by the tail. If the Christ had been historical 
in this transaction, the devil must be historical too. Both stand on the same footing of fact 
or fable. According to the record, Satan must have been as real as the Christ, or Christ as 



mythical as the devil. Was Satan also incarnated for life in the flesh? If so, when did he 
die? where was the place of his burial? and did he also rise again? Nobody seems to care 
what became of the poor devil after he was told to get behind, or take a back seat, that of 
the hinder part. The scene in the Mount of Transfiguration is obviously derived from the 
ascent of Osiris (or Horus), and his transfiguration in the Mount of the Moon. The sixth 
day was celebrated as that of the change and transfiguration of the solar god in the lunar 
orb, which he re-entered as the regenerator of its light. With this we may compare the 
statement made by Matthew that "After six days Jesus" went "up into a high mountain 
apart, and he was transfigured. " "And his face did shine as the sun" (of course!), "and his 
garments became white as the light. " 

The natural phenomena on which these Egyptian legends or myths were founded are the 
contentions of light and darkness at the time of the equinox, or in the waxing and waning 
of the light in the lunar orb. "He must increase, but I must decrease, " says John, who 
plays the part of Sut-Aan to Jesus as the Light of the World. This was the battle between 
Horus and Satan. In one legend it is said that Sut was seven days fleeing on the back of 
an ass from his battle with Horus. That means the seven days of the second quarter of the 
moon, during which Horus triumphs as Lord of the growing light. And here we can point 
to a curious survival! The Unicorn was a type of Sut, and the Lion of Horus; and their 
conflict is described in our legend— 

"The Lion and the Unicorn 
Were fighting for a farthing, 
The Lion beat the Unicorn 
Up and down the garden! 
The Lion and the Unicorn 
Were fighting for a crown, 
The Lion beat the Unicorn 
Up and down the town! " 

The farthing is a fourth; and they fought for a fourthing, or a quarter of the moon; equal 
to the seven days during which darkness was put to flight; and the crown is the full, round 
disk of the moon. Thus, as the Egyptian imagery proves, the arms of England illustrate 
the same subject-matter as the contest of Horus and Sut, of Angro-Mainyus and 
Zarathustra, and of the Christ and Satan. And now, if you will have the patience, I will 
show a scene in which the Christ of the Gospels is restored to his proper place and station 
in the heavens, as the Teacher on the Mount, and as such can be identified. Jesus goes up 
into the mythical mountain when he appoints the twelve disciples, that they might be with 
him, and have authority to cast out devils (Mark iii. 14). 

In Matthew's compilation Jesus calls the twelve, and gives them authority to cast out 
devils. It is here that he says "the harvest is plenteous, but the labourers are few. " Luke 
describes the same scene in the same words, and the same commission is granted, the 
same powers are given to the disciples! But now the seventy have taken the place of the 
twelve. "And the Seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto 
us in thy name!" The "Seventy in the Mount" are an ancient pre-Christian institution. 
They were once the "Seventy Elders" who received their instructions from Moses in the 
Mount. But in many ancient authorities these Seventy with Christ are Seventy-two. The 
two different numbers are identifiably astronomical, and they go to double my proof. 
Previous to the heaven of twelve divisions, and seventy-two sub-divisions, or duo-decans 
of the zodiac, there was a heaven often divisions and seventy sub-divisions; and we find 
the same mixture of the seventy with the seventy-two, and of the ten with the twelve, in 
the Astronomical Book of Enoch. Here, in the Canonical Version, we have the twelve, 
and the complementary seventy-two, but no ten to account for the seventy! This missing 



factor we shall find in the Divine Pymander, or fragments of Hermes. There we meet 
with the ten in the mount, and the ten are the expellers of devils or torments, just as the 
twelve and the seventy are in the gospels. All these parts belong to one system of 
mythological representation, and wherever they are separately found can be identified, as 
certainly as the scattered pieces of a puzzle by those who know the subject-matter of the 
total picture. As before said, the scene on the mount of transfiguration reproduces the 
ascent of Buddha into Mount Pandava or Yellow- White, and of Osiris into the Moon! 
Now, this Mount of the Moon was a seat of the eight great gods of Egypt. And in the 
Divine Pymander it is called the Octonary of Tat, who is Lord in Smen, the region of the 
eight, at the north celestial pole. Lower down it was the mount of the four quarters, or of 
the Moon, and of the four with Horus in the Mount; and, still lower down, it becomes the 
heaven of the twelve signs, the zodiacal circle; and here the fragments of Hermes, or the 
Divine Pymander, have brought on matter of very special importance. One of the 
chapters is entitled "The Secret Sermon on the Mount of Regeneration. " Regeneration is 
the mystical form of the transfiguration of Osiris in the Mount of the Moon. This Mount, 
also called the Tabernacle, is said to consist of the Zodiacal circle, the signs of which are 
the twelve belonging to the Mount— the Zodiac being the lowest of three heavens, or 
stories to the Mount, Stellar, Lunar, and Solar. Now, let us see how the Mount, together 
with the Sayer and the Sermon on the Mount, have been reproduced in the Gospels. In the 
account furnished by Matthew we find but four companions with Christ in the Mount. 
These are the two pairs of the brethren, who answer to the four brothers of Osiris, who 
are the gods of the four quarters. But in Luke's Gospel the Mount of the four has become 
the Mount of the twelve. Accordingly the sermon is here delivered lower down, at the 
bottom of the Mount! In fact, Jesus, instead of being seated with the four on the Mount, is 
said to stand with the twelve in the plain below! This shows the Mount to be astronomical 
as well as mythical. Further, in the same scene, where the disciples are twelve in number, 
as lords of the harvest—according to Matthew's Gospel— they are seventy or seventy-two 
according to Luke, the number of duo-decans into which the twelve signs of the Zodiac 
were finally sub-divided. In the Divine Pymander the title of the "Mount of 
Regeneration" serves to show the nature of the sermon. It is the "Secret Sermon. " "Oh, 
son, " says Hermes, "this wisdom is to be understood in silence; " that is, the knowledge or 
experience of the Regeneration taught by the Secret Sermon on the Mount. Hermes had 
said that No man can be saved before regeneration; and Tat desires to understand the 
nature of this regeneration. He says to Hermes, "I do humbly entreat thee, at the going up 
to the mountain!"-- just as the Twelve besought Jesus privately in the Mount. And Hermes 
shows him how the mortal man while in the flesh can transform into the immortal mind. 
In the mysteries this was figured as the rising from the dead, and it was so taught by the 
Gnostics. The process was illustrated by transformation, or entering into the state of 
trance, whereby (as was held) the mortal was changed into the immortal in this life; and it 
is evident that in the scene of the transfiguration described by Matthew, the vision of the 
three witnesses belongs to the trance condition, for they had a vision which they were to 
tell to no man! In the Canonical Gospels the mythical Mount has been made mundane; 
the divine speakers have been made human; the mystical teaching has been literalised by 
the endeavour to make the total transaction historical. After the "Secret Sermon (or 
spiritual representation) in the Mount of Regeneration, and the profession of silence, " 
Hermes tells Tat to keep silence— these things are neither to be taught nor told: they are to 
be hid in silence! In the gospels Jesus charges the disciples that they shall tell no man 
what things they have witnessed, save when the Son of Man shall have risen again from 
the dead. And the disciples, who are said to have just seen a resurrection from the dead 
performed before them, are described as questioning among themselves what the rising 
again from the dead should mean! (Mark ix. 9.) In the Osirian myth the rising from the 
dead was the re-birth of the Lord of light in the orb of the New Moon. That was the 



transfiguration of Osiris in the Mount of the Moon, on the sixth day of the month. In the 
mystical phase the rising from the dead in the Mount of Regeneration, as pourtrayed by 
Hermes, was a transformation into the spiritual or abnormal state, which demonstrated 
immortality. Thus we have the rising from the dead in two phases—astronomical and 
spiritual; both Egyptian, both able to explain their own meaning, and both pre-Christian! 
In the gospels we have the same Mount, the same Mythos, the same matter, the same 
Numbers, the same characters, rendered historically. You can't help seeing the bones of 
the Mythos staring through its skin! You are positively present at the transformation of 
the mythical into the historical. The soli-lunar god and the Gnostic Christ have both 
contributed obviously to the make-up of the humanised Christ on the "Mount of 
Regeneration and the profession of silence!" No wonder the disciples could not 
understand what the rising from the dead should mean! In this manner the Mythos can be 
followed, as it goes on eating its way through the history, like the larva; of the Anobium 
pertinax, of which it is recorded by Peiquot that one specimen perforated twenty-seven 
folio volumes in a line so straight that a cord could be passed through the hole, and the 
twenty-seven volumes slung up altogether. 

It is claimed by Christian teachers that the Christ was incarnated as the especial revealer 
of the father who is in heaven, and that the revelation culminated on the Mount when he 
taught the fatherhood of God in the Lord's prayer. But the Lord's prayer is no more 
original than is the Lord to whom it was last assigned. In the Jewish "Kadish" we have 
the following pre-Christian form of it, which is almost word for word the same:-- "Our 
father which art in heaven! Be gracious to us, O Lord our God! Hallowed be thy name! 
And let the remembrance of thee be glorified in heaven above and upon earth below! Let 
thy kingdom reign over us now and for ever! Thy holy men of old said, 'Remit and forgive 
unto all men whatsoever they have done against me!' And lead us not into temptation! 
But deliver us from the evil thing! For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory 
for ever and for ever. " 

If such a revelation had ever been historical, if the divine son had once been incarnated to 
reveal the fatherhood, it could not have remained until the Christian era for this to be 
done. It did not need any Deity to descend from heaven to reveal that which had been 
common doctrine in Egypt at least 4,000 years earlier. And this prayer was prayed by the 
one particular people who rejected the Son of God when he had come down. But the 
matter is mythical and mystical, —it can only be understood doctrinally by means of the 
Gnosis. The initial point of the teaching is this,— there could be no fatherhood in heaven 
until the human fatherhood was individualized on earth. Previously there was only the 
divine mother and the fathers in general. Hence the first Messiah was called the Son of 
the Woman, as he is in the book of Enoch; the later is the Son of Man— the Gnostic 
Anthropos, and the only-begotten of the Father, the Gnostic Monogenes. This is he who 
was the last of the iEons, and who came at the end of the world. He instructed the ^Eons 
who had preceded him, and "taught them that those who had a comprehension of the 
unbegotten were sufficient for themselves, or needed no higher knowledge than that 
proclaimed by him. " He first announced among them what related to the knowledge of 
the father, but that was within the Pleroma, not on the earth. This was the great and 
abstruse mystery of the Gnostics, says Irenaeus, that the Proarche, the Power which is 
above all others and contains all, is termed Anthropos; hence the manifester is styled the 
"Son of Man. " This title of the Christ occurs nearly eighty times over in the Gospel 
according to Matthew, where he is identical with the Gnostic Anthropos— Son of 
Anthropos. That is, the Son of the God who was now imaged in the likeness of the 
individualized Father, which was the latest institution in heaven, because it had been last 
on earth. Here, it may be observed in passing, is a fact that is forever fatal to the theory 
that the Christology of the Gospels was derived from Buddhism. There is no divine 
fatherhood proclaimed by the Son in Buddhism. But the teaching was Egyptian. 



The most important sayings assigned to Jesus by the writer of John's Gospel are not 
recorded or referred to by the Synoptics—Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These contain the 
secret wisdom of the Gnostics; they are the Logia of the Gnostic Christ, who was Horus, 
the Lord, in Egypt. They are spoken by the Son of Man, who is in heaven (John iii. 13), 
and who taught the twelve Mom there with the same doctrinal sayings that are here 
assigned to the Teacher of the twelve on earth, or on the Mount. Moreover, in John's 
gospel we meet with the Seven Fishers on board the boat. These correspond to the seven 
who are followers of Horus in the Egyptian Ritual, and who are said to fish for Horus. 
They go a-fishing with Horus in his boat; and they are also called the "Seven planks in the 
boat of souls. " The miraculous draught of fishes occurs in both. Now, it is noticeable that 
this miraculous take of fishes is described by Luke as occurring during the life-time of 
Jesus, but according to the Johanine gospel, the transaction takes place in a region beyond 
the tomb, or at least, after the death and resurrection of Jesus,— and therefore in the very 
region where the Gnostics declared these things had occurred. Which, think ye, was first, - 
-the assuredly mythical, or the alleged historical? 

The gospel according to John is the link of connection between the true Gnosis and the 
false history of the other gospels. It shows the very ground on which the mythos alighted 
to be made mundane, and that is why it was kept secret, and withheld until the middle of 
the second century or so, by which time the doctrine of the Christ made flesh was 
considered safe, and sure to supersede the teachings of the Gnostics with the gospel of 
historic Christianity. 

An identifiable personal founder and historical teacher of Christianity is the least of all 
the various factors! The Church of Rome did not derive its secret dogmas and doctrines 
from the canonical gospels in which his teachings are believed to be enshrined. Various 
Egyptian doctrines, not to be found in our canonical gospels, survived in the Church of 
Rome; these were taught esoterically according to an unwritten tradition, and only 
allowed to become exoteric as time and opportunity permitted. Take for example the 
worship of the "Sacred Heart. " That is no recent invention of Rome or the Ritualists. The 
doctrine is Egyptian, and of the remotest antiquity. The heart, on account of its relation to 
the blood, was held to be the house of life, and also the mother of life. The heart was the 
shrine of the soul. Its Egyptian name of Hat, and Hor, the soul, or divine child, compose 
the name of Hathor, the mother of Horus, the Christ. And as the heart or habitation is the 
mother of life, it was adopted as a type of the birth-place. And so in the Ritual the soul, 
speaking as Horus, says, "My heart is (or was) my mother, " in a chapter (30) which 
contains the doctrine of the "Sacred Heart. " For this reason the heart-shaped fruit of the 
Persea tree of life was an emblem of Hathor and her child. The stone of it was shown 
through a cleft in the fruit to denote the seed of the woman. 

Now, as previously said, one name of Hathor is Meri. Horus was the Child-Christ of the 
Sacred Heart of Meri, who was the goddess of love in Egypt, as well as the abode or 
dwelling of life, before she became the Madonna Mary in Rome. This is not only the 
source of the Sacred Heart as a Christian doctrine, it is also the origin of Cupid, the childgod 
of love, and the typical heart still sacred to lovers on Valentine's day. 
Possibly the nearest we can get to Jesus ben Pandira as a teacher, if he makes any 
appearance whatever in the Gospels, is in the gloomy ascetic, the anti-naturalist, who 
mistook the non-natural for the divine; who would have had men to save their 
protoplasmal souls by becoming eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven's sake! and whose 
model for heaven itself was a monastery, as when he says, "In my father's house are 
many monai, " or monasterion,— with no women there to cause a second fall from heaven! 
He might possibly have been the self-tormenting teacher of a creed of monkery, only that 
institution was already established, and no place was left for him to be the founder even 
there. It is just possible that Joshua ben Pandira may have brought out of Egypt a version 
of the Sayings of the original Matiu or Matthew, together with a form of the Horus-myth. 



If so, these would be manipulated by his followers, one of whom, James, is said, in the 
book Abadazurah, to have been a follower of Jehoshua the Nazarene, and so by degrees 
the historic Joshua would be confused with, and finally converted into, Jesus the Christ of 
Nazareth, and the mystical Sayer into the Word made flesh: the Jesus of that "other 
Gospel" which was opposed by Paul. The sayings themselves, selected in a last 
assortment, have not even the consistency of a kaleidoscope. They will not fall into any 
set form of themselves, or reflect any mental unity anywhere. And so each sect or system 
of interpretation has to take them and construct its own kaleidoscope, and determine its 
own views, doing all it can to impose them upon others. Texts may be quoted on all sides 
for purposes the most antagonistic. Diversity radiates outwardly from them because there 
was no unity of origin, no individual life at the heart of them all. 
When our missionaries first made the sayings known to the Arawaks of Guiana, they 
remarked, "The word is good but we knew most of it before. " Most of the true sayings 
were known before! As we have them they are so various—good, bad, and indifferent—as 
to constitute that hybrid mixture which is certain to entail sterility. Some of the sayings 
are no more appropriate to our human wants than was the old lady's tract on the sin of 
dancing, which she offered to a poor fellow who had to hobble about on two wooden legs 
and crutches! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out\ " Of what value is such advice as 
that? Also, it is impossible for us to love our enemies, if it were right to do so; and, as has 
been said, it would be wrong to do it if it were possible. "Blessed are they who have not 
seen yet have believed. " Why, tyranny could devise no doctrine that could be turned to 
more fatal account! "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for their 's is the kingdom of heaven. " 
Do you call the teaching of that saying divine? I think it would be false and fraudulent if 
uttered by a voice from the Infinite with all heaven for its mouthpiece! The poor in spirit 
are the accursed, the outcasts, and pariahs of the earth; those who sink into the squalor 
and crawl in the filthy dens of poverty, to become the natural victims of all its parasites of 
prey. The poor in spirit are the prematurely old men, weary, worn-out women, and 
wizened children, all bleaching into a ghastly white in the chilling shadow of daily want! 
The poor in spirit are those who crouch and offer their backs to the whip, who remain 
bowed just as they were bent, and allow their hands to be fettered and held fast in the 
attitude of prayer, when they ought to be up and striking. They who are content to crawl 
like caterpillars, and be trodden as caterpillars underfoot. Poverty of spirit is the very 
devil; the source of half the evil extant; most of the meannesses in human nature may be 
traced to poverty of spirit! It dwarfs the mental stature of men, makes them bow the neck, 
and creep and grovel for a little gain, or go down on all fours in the dirt, as beasts in 
human form, from lack of spirit enough to stand erect! The poor in spirit dare not think 
for themselves, or utter what they think! They only wonder what other folk will think! 
They who are only mere preliminary people that go monkeying round under the pretence 
of being women and men! In this world of struggle, this scene of survival for the fittest, 
the poor in spirit stand no chance, and find no place; there is no victory for those who 
fight no battle. And as to heaven— do you really think heaven is a harbour of refuge for 
the poor in spirit and the area-sneaks of earth? The poor and needy, the hungry and 
suffering, are not the blessed, and no assumption of divine authority on the part of the 
sayer will ever make them so. These beatitudes are not divine revelations, they are only 
the false promises of the priests, who were the crafty founders of the faith, made 
comfortable to Roman rule. 

One very striking note of the want of human personality and historic verity in the Christ 
of the canonical Gospels is the absence of all recognition of Rome. There is no shadow of 
Rome to be seen on the face of the Christ; no word of rebuke for her inhuman and nonnatural 
crimes; no sign of anything contemporary: except the counselling of submission 
to Caesar. The slave would look in vain to the sayings of Jesus for any denunciation of 
slavery. There is not one word of condemnation for the oppressors, nor of comfort for the 



oppressed. No vision of the better day on earth for them. Nothing but the mythical Day of 
the Lord. 

Yet the existence of slavery was endorsed by the Roman law, was practised with all its 
evils, and enforced by all her legions. Jesus, however, makes no attack on the institution; 
and the fact was quoted and emphatically emphasised by the ministers of the Gospel of 
Christ against the persecuted Abolitionists of America. Nor is there a single word uttered 
on behalf of subjugated, downtrodden womankind. Not a saying that will aid in lifting 
woman to an equality with man— not a rebuke to the bigoted Jew who thanked his God 
each morning that he was not a woman. Nor is he credited with uttering one word against 
cruelty to animals; he gives no voice to the dumb creation. No quickening of conscience 
in these matters can be attributed to him. Neither the mother, the wife, nor the sister, 
owes any gratitude to his alleged teaching, who exclaimed, "Woman, what have I to do 
with thee?" Neither the slaves, nor the women, nor the children, nor the animals, owe 
their deliverance from inhuman thraldom to him. He had nothing to say about these 
pitifully-human interests. And it is a foolish farce to go on attributing the emancipation of 
humanity to the teachings of Jesus the Great Reformer. As a human history nothing can 
be made of it. It does not even begin to be—however much you believe. The 
contradictions are such as make history impossible. Amidst the dissolution of dogmas 
and the universal wreck of creeds, vain is the endeavour to prop the falling structure with 
the personality of the Canonical Christ, which evades us and vanishes in proportion as we 
seek for it in the Gospels. The common assumption is that the historic element was the 
kernel of the whole, and that the fable accreted around it. But, if you will try it over again 
this other way, you will find the mythos which was fundamental will explain all. The 
mythos being pre-extant, shows that the core of the matter was mythical, and it follows 
that the alleged history is incremental. And when at last we do get to the bottom of the 
abyss we learn that the historic grounds have been formed from the sunken debris or 
dregs of the ancient mythology. 

That pyramid of imposture reared by Rome, 

All of cement, for an eternal home, 

Must crumble back to earth; and every gust 

Shall revel in the desert of its dust; 

And when the prison of the Immortal, Mind, 

Hath fallen to set free the bound and blind, 

No more shall life be one long dread of death, 

Humanity shall breathe with fuller breath; 

Expand in spirit and in stature rise, 

To match its birth-place of the earth and skies. 



GNOSTIC AND HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY 

My purpose in the present lectures is to enforce with further evidence, and sustain with 
ampler detail, the interpretation of facts, which has been already outlined in the "Natural 
Genesis." My contention is, that the original mythos and gnosis of Christianity were 
primarily derived from Egypt on various lines of descent, Hebrew, Persian, and Greek, 
Alexandrian, Essenian, and Nazarene, and that these converged in Rome, where the 
History was manufactured mainly from the identifiable matter of the Mythos recorded in 
the ancient Books of Wisdom, illustrated by Gnostic Art, and orally preserved amongst 
the secrets of the Mysteries. 

My stand-point had not previously been taken. It was not until this, the Era of 
Excavation, that we were able to dig down far enough to recover the fundamental facts 
that were most essential for the Student of Survivals and development to know anything 
certain concerning the remoter origins and evolution of the Christian System; the most 
ancient evidences having been neglected until now. 

Instead of the Roman Church being a crucible for purging the truth from the dross of 
error, to give it forth pure gold, we shall have to look upon it rather as the melting-pot, in 
which the beautiful and noble mental coinage of Greece and Egypt was fused down and 
made featureless, to be run into another mould, stamped with a newer name, and reissued 
under a later date. 

In the course of establishing Apostolic Christianity upon historical foundations, there was 
such a reversal of cause and outcome that the substance and the shadow had to change 
places, and the husk and kernel lost their natural relationship and value. All that was first 
in time and in originality has been put latest, in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled, 
and the last become first. All that preceded Christianity in the religion of knowledge, of 
the Gnostics, has come to be looked back upon as if it were like that representation in the 
German play where Adam is seen crossing the stage in the act of going to be created! 
Historic Christianity has gathered in the crops that were not of its kind, but were garnered 
from the seed already in the soil. Whosoever tilled and sowed, it has assumed the credit, 
and been permitted to reap the harvest, as undisputed master of the field. It claimed, and 
was gradually allowed, to be the source of almost every true word and perfect work that 
was previously extant; and these were assigned to a personal Christ as the veritable 
Author and Finisher of the Faith. Every good thing was re-dated, re-warranted, declared, 
and guaranteed to be the blessed result of Historic Christianity, as established by Jesus 
and his personal disciples. It can be demonstrated that Christianity pre-existed without 
the Personal Christ, that it was continued by Christians who entirely rejected the 
historical character in the second century, and that the supposed historic portraiture in the 
Canonical Gospels was extant as mythical and mystical before the Gospels themselves 
existed. In short, the mythical theory can be proved by recovering the Mythos and the 
Gnosis. 

The picture of the New Beginning commonly presented is Rembrandt-like in tone. The 
whole world around Judea lay in the shadow of outer darkness, when suddenly there was 
a great light seen at the centre of all, and the face of the startled universe was illuminated 
by an apparition of the child-Christ lying in the lap of Mary. Such was the dawn of 
Christianity, in which the Light of the World had come to it at last! That explanation is 
beautifully simple for the simple-minded; but the picture is purely ideal—or, in sterner 
words, it is entirely false. 

When the fountain-heads of the Nile were reached at last, it was perceived that the great 
river did not rise from any single source in one particular place, but from a vast 



concourse of many tributary springs. So when we come to examine for ourselves the vast 
complex that passes under the vague name of Christianity we learn that it can be traced 
to no one single source or locality. So far from its being an original system as product of 
the life, character, work, and teachings of a personal founder, we have to acknowledge 
sooner or later that it is more like a unique specimen of what school -boys profanely call a 
"Resurrection pie." 

Another popular delusion most ignorantly cherished is, that there was a golden age of 
primitive Christianity, \n\\ic\\ follow edt\\Q preaching of the Founder and the practice of 
his apostles; and that there was a falling away from this paradisiacal state of primordial 
perfection when the Catholic Church in Rome lapsed into idolatry, Paganised and 
perverted the original religion, and poisoned the springs of the faith at the very fountainhead 
of their flowing purity. Such is the pious opinion of those orthodox Protestants who 
are always clamouring to get back beyond the Roman Church to that ideal of primitive 
perfection supposed to be found in the simple teachings of Jesus, and the lives of his 
personal followers, as recorded in the four canonical gospels and in the Acts of the 
Apostles. But when we do penetrate far enough into the past to see somewhat clearly 
through and beyond the cloud of dust that was the cause of a great obscuration in the first 
two centuries of our era, we find that there was no such new beginning, that the earliest 
days of the purest Christianity were pre-historic, and that the real golden age of 
knowledge and simple morality preceded, and did not follow, the Apostolic Roman 
Church, or the Deification of its Founder, or the humanising of the "Lamb of God," 
whom Lucian calls the "Impaled One of Palestine." 
In an interesting book just published, entitled "Buddhism in 

Christendom," Mr. Lillie thinks he has found Jesus, the author of Christianity, as one of 
the Essenes, and a Buddhist! But there is no need of craning one's neck out of joint in 
looking to India, or straining in that direction at all, for the origin of that which was 
Egyptian born and Gnostic bred! Essenism was no new birth of Hindu Buddhism, 
brought to Alexandria about two centuries before our era; and Christianity, whether 
considered to be mystical or historical, was not derived from Buddhism at any time. They 
have some things in common, because there is a Beyond to both. The crucial test, 
however, is to be found on the threshold, at the first step we take, in the doctrine of the 
divine Fatherhood. The supreme role assigned to the Christ of the Gospels, as of the 
Gnostics, is that of Manifestor and Reveal er of the Father in heaven. His sign-manual is 
the seal of the Father. A dozen times, according to Matthew, he calls God, "My Father." 
In John's Gospel, he says, "I and my Father are one." "I am come in my Father's name." 
"My Father hath sent me." "My Father hath taught me." "I am in my Father." "The word 
ye hear is my Father's." Buddha makes no revelation of the mythology. The Buddha is the 
veiled God unveiled, the un-manifested made manifest, Buddha, like Putha (or Khepr- 
Ptah), was begotten by his own becoming, before the time of the divine paternity. There 
being no real Father-God in Buddhism, the Buddha has none to make known on earth. 
The doctrine was Egyptian, as when it is proclaimed in the Texts that Horus is "the son 
who proceeds from his father," and Osiris is the "father who proceeds from his son." 
Again, in the Hindu myth of the ascent and transfiguration on the Mount, the Six Glories 
of the Buddha's head are represented as shining out with a brilliance that was blinding to 
mortal sight. These Six Glories are equivalent to the six manifestations of the Moon-God 
in the six Upper Signs, or, as it was set forth, in the Lunar Mount. During six months, the 
Horus, or Buddha, as Lord of Light in the Moon, did battle with the Powers of Darkness 
by night, whilst the Sun itself was fighting his way through the Six Lower Signs. Now, in 
the Gospel according to John, there is no contest with Satan, and no Transfiguration on 
the Mount! Instead, we have the "Light of the world," which is in heaven, warring with 
the Darkness, and manifesting His glory in six miracles—no more, no less—answering the 
Six Glories of the Buddha's head on the Mount or the six manifestations in the luminous 



hemisphere of the superior signs. The "beginning of his signs," by which Jesus 

"manifested his glory," was the turning of water into wine. The sixth, and last, of these, 

was the raising of Lazarus, which corresponds exactly with the rising of the Mummyconstellation 

(Sahu) of Orion, which ascended as the star of the Resurrection, when the 

solar god returned from the dark hemisphere of the under- world, or the sun re-entered the 

sign of the Bull at the vernal equinox. The source of all is the identifiable astronomical 

allegory in the Soli-Lunar phase, but the fable followed in the Gospel is Egyptian, not 

Buddhist. The Christ is one with Horus as Lord of the Lunar light, who manifested the 

glory (or the Six Glories) of his father, in the six upper signs, as his only-begotten Son. 

The claim now made is that the common Mythos determined the number of the six 

Glories, or six Miracles, and the history was moulded accordingly. 

I also think that Jesus~or Joshua-ben-Pandira— vras an Essene. That is, he was a Nazarite, 

and the Nazarites were one with the Essenes. And these, for example, are amongst the 

"sayings" in the Book of the Nazarenes. "Blessed are the peacemakers, the just, and 

'faithful.'" "Feed the hungry; give drink to the thirsty; clothe the naked." "When thou 

makest a gift, seek no witness whereof, to mar thy bounty. Let thy right hand be ignorant 

of the gifts of thy left." Such were common to all the Gnostic Scriptures, going back to 

the Egyptian. This is a Nazarene saying from the Book of Adam:— "No poor sculpture of 

earth has fashioned his throne. The palace of the King was not built up by earthly 

masons." And this is from an Egyptian hymn: --"He is not graven in marble, nor adored in 

sanctuaries. There is no building that can contain him." In the ancient Egyptian "Maxims 

of Ani" we read:— "The sanctuary of God abhors noisy demonstrations. Pray humbly with 

a loving heart, all the words of which are uttered in secret. He will listen to thy words; He 

will accept thy offerings. Exaggerate not the liturgical prescriptions; it is forbidden to 

offer more than is prescribed. Thou shalt make adorations in his name." These contain the 

essence of the early verses in the 6th chapter of Matthew, where the injunctions given 

are:— "Sound not a trumpet before thee, etc. Pray in secret to thy Father, which is in 

secret, and he shall recompense thee. And in praying use not vain repetitions." Ani 

denotes one of the names of Taht who, as Mati = Matthew, wrote down the Sayings of 

the Lord, some of which are amongst these Maxims. But, unfortunately, you cannot 

prove anything, or, still more unfortunately, you can prove anything from the Gospels! 

You must first catch your Jesus, before you pretend to tell us what he was personally, and 

what were his own individual teachings. These "sayings of mine," cannot be judged as his 

if they were pre-extant, and can be proved to be anyone's sayings, or may be identified as 

ancient sayings, whether Buddhist, Nazarene, Apocryphal, or Egyptian. Also, there are 

different versions of the same sayings in the Gospels! In Matthew, we read: "Blessed are 

they that hunger and thirst after righteousness." In Luke it is:— "Blessed are ye that hunger 

now." In Matthew:— "Blessed are the poor in spirit." In Luke:— "Blessed be ye poor. Woe 

unto you that are rich! " Which, then, is the version that is personal to Jesus, the 

Nazarene? or where is the sense of claiming that the personal Jesus was an Essene or 

Nazarite— one of those who never touched wine, or strong drink— when one of the inspired 

writers testifies that he was described as a glutton, and a wine-bibber; and, according to 

another, his very first miracle was the turning of water into wine for a marriage feast? 

Suppose we admit that you have laid hold of Joshua, the Essene, the Nazarite, the reputed 

Great Healer, the Comforter, what can you make of a character so unhuman as this? 

A poor Canaanitish woman comes to him from a long distance and beseeches him to cure 

her daughter who is grievously obsessed. "Have mercy on me, O Lord," she pleads. But 

he answered her not a word. The disciples, brutes as they were, if the scene were real, 

besought him to send her away because she cried after them. Jesus answered, and said:— 

"I was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." She worships him, and he calls 

her one of the dogs. And it is only her extreme deference that wins a kindly word from 

him at last. The Essenes and Gnostics absolutely denied the physical resurrection, 



because they were Spiritualists; therefore, it was impossible for an Essene to have taught 
the resurrection of the dead at the Last Day as Jesus is made to do. (John vi. 39, 40, and 
xi. 24.) 

Again, if the pupil of Ben Perachia was an Essene, or, as reputed, an initiate in Egyptian 
mysteries, he never could have endorsed the mistakes attributed to Moses; never would 
have died for the reality of a parable, which he must have known to be astronomical. As 
one of the Magi or an Essene, he would understand the "Doctrine of Angels," i.e., of the 
cycles of time, the character of the Kronian Messiah and the Coming in 400 years, 
according to the prophecy of Esdras. He would know the celestial nature of the Seventytwo 
whose names were written in Heaven as servants of the Lord of Light, and who had 
been with him "from the beginning" as the opponents of the Seventy-two Sami who 
served Sut-Typhon, the devil of darkness. He would know that the myths were not to be 
fulfilled in human history, and could not have personally set up the crazy claim that he 
was the messenger of Hebrew prophecy in person. No. The claims are made in his name 
by those who naturalized the Mythos on its Hebrew- Aramaic line of descent in Matthew, 
Egyptian in Luke, and Greek in John. What we do hear is not the voice of the founder 
teaching one thing at one time and the direct opposite at another; we hear the voices of 
the different sections, each proclaiming its own particular doctrines and dogmas, each 
assigning them to the Christ as their typical teacher, in the course of making out a 
personal history from the Mythos, and of giving vent to their own particular prejudices. 
The sayings of the Lord were pre-historic, as the sayings of David (who was an earlier 
Christ), the sayings of Horus the Lord, of Elijah the Lord, of Mana the Lord, of Christ the 
Lord, as the divine directions conveyed by the ancient teachings. As the "Sayings of the 
Lord" they were collected in Aramaic to become the nuclei of the earliest Christian 
gospel according to Matthew. So says Papias. At a later date they were put forth as the 
original revelation of a personal teacher, and were made the foundation of the historical 
fiction concocted in the four gospels that were canonized at last. In proving that Joshua or 
Jesus was an Essene there would be no more rest here than anywhere else for the sole of 
your foot upon the ground of historic fact. You could not make him to be the Founder of 
the Essene, Nazarite or Gnostic Brotherhoods, and communities of the genuine primitive 
Christians that were extant in various countries a very long while before the Era called 
Christian. 

Nor is there any need to go to India for the original healers, called Essenes or 
Therapeutae. The dawn of civilisation arose in Egypt, with healing on its wings. Egypt 
was the land of physicians through all her monumental history. Amongst the nations of 
antiquity she stands a head and shoulders above the rest; first in time and pre-eminent in 
attainment. Egypt was the great physician of the human race, and she sent out her 
medical missionaries from the earliest times. The Essenes were the same as the 
Therapeutae or Healers, and they are the healers by name in Egyptian. Philo farther 
identifies their name with Essa in Hebrew, for healing. But Egypt had given birth to the 
Essenic name, and, therefore, to the persons named, before the letter E existed; that was 
previous to the middle empire (which ended over 4,000 years ago). In old Egyptian, the 
word Usha means to doctor. Whence the Ushai, later, Eshai, or Essenes, are the healers 
and physicians Josephus has compared the Pythagoreans with the Egyptian Therapeutae 
or Alexandrian Essenes; and attempts have been made to show the derivation of Buddhist 
doctrines from India through Pythagoras whose name has been derived from Put = 
Buddha and Guru, a teacher with intent to prove that he was a teacher of the religion of 
Buddha. But the Egyptian Putha (the original of Buddha as I suggest) is indefinitely older 
than any known Buddha in India; therefore, as Pythagoras was learned in the wisdom of 
Egypt and was a teacher of it, I should derive his name from Putha (Ptah) and Khuru 
(Eg.), the Voice or Word of; as a teacher of the Cult of Putha or Ptah, the Opener and 
"Lord of Life." 



Also, when he entered the first stage of the Essenic mysteries as a student of divinity, the 
Initiate was presented with an axe; that is the Egyptian hieroglyphic of divinity, called the 
Nuter; the sign with which the name of the priest, prophet, or Holy Father, was written. 
Philo informs us that the Jewish lawgiver (Moses) had trained into fellowship a large 
number of those who bore the name of Essenes. There were both Egyptian and Jewish 
communities of the healers preceding those that were known by the Christian or Gnostic 
names. Jerome calls the Essenes or Therapeuts "The monks of the old law," and Evagrius 
Ponticus speaks of "A monk of great renown who belonged to a sect of the Gnostics" that 
dwelt near Alexandria, and were known by name as the "Christian Gnostics." Clement of 
Alexandria also claimed to be a Gnostic Christian. As M. Renan points out, the life of the 
so-called Christian hermits was first commenced in Egypt. Ages earlier there had been 
Egyptian communities of recluses, both male and female, near the Serapaeum of 
Memphis, which were supported by the State. In Philo's letter to Hephaestion, he says the 
cells of the Egyptian healers are scattered about the region on the farther shore of Lake 
Mareotis, in Egypt. Pliny speaks of the "Ages on ages" during which the Essenes had 
existed, and Epiphanius, about the year 400, says,~"The Essenes continue in their first 
position, and have not changed at all." Such permanency, of course, demands a long 
period of induration. But it is enough for the present argument to know they were extant 
for at least 150 years before the Christian era. Epiphanius also admits that the Christians 
were at first called Therapeutae and Jesseans, an equivalent name, as he explains, for the 
Essenes. They were all healers and doctors. As the Ushai or Jesseans they were already 
extant as the healers by name, independently of any personal Jesus or Joshua the Healer. 
Also, in Greek the verb for healing comes from the same root as the name of Jesus. The 
Essenes were healers, not because they were the workers of mythical miracles like Jesus, 
but because they were profound students of Nature's secret powers; because they were 
masters of the science of mental medicine, consciously able to draw on the spirit- world 
for healing influences! 

They had discovered that health was infectious as well as disease, and that the capacity 
for receiving and giving, as a medium of the higher life, depended on conditions that 
could be cultivated in this life. Hence the stress they laid on personal purity and its eight 
stages of attainment. They were healers by virtue of the Christ within. Again, we learn 
from pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite, that the name of healer, i.e., the "Essene" or 
Therapeut, whom Eusebius calls the Curate, was employed in the early Church to denote 
the perfected Adept, who had attained the highest standing, just as it was with the earlier 
Essenes. The current expression,— "A Cure of Souls," or a "Curacy," still shows the 
Christian line of descent from the pre-Christian healers. 

We sometimes hear of early Christian Communities in which there was no private 
property, but all things were held in common, as we read in the Book of Acts; although in 
that case the Twelve would but constitute a late community. The members of these 
brotherhoods are said to have dwelt together in perfect equality; in fact, to have lived 
according to those principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity which were formulated as 
an aim of the French Revolution! But such societies did not first originate as the result of 
establishing "Historic Christianity." They did not come from the Twelve Apostles, nor 
from the church at Jerusalem, nor from Rome. They were founded by the prehistoric 
Christians, who were primitive enough to practise their creed instead of merely preaching 
it as a faith. But such primitive Christians were quietly at work in various parts of the 
world, giving health to the sick, peace to the troubled, freedom to the slave, and 
knowledge to the ignorant, long before the existence of Papal or Apostolic Christianity. 
Philo- Judaeus, who was one of the Essenes— but does not seem to have met with the 
Gospel Jesus amongst them, or heard of him— Philo says of them,— "Three things regulate 
all they learn and do— viz., love to God, love of virtue, love for man. A proof of the first is 
the matchless sanctity of their entire life, their fear of oaths and lies, and the conviction 



that God is only the originator of good, never of evil. They show their love of virtue by 
their indifference to gain, glory, and pleasure; by their temperance, perseverance, 
simplicity absence of wants, humility, faithfulness, and straightforwardness. They 
exemplify their love for their fellow-creatures by kindness, absence of pretensions, and 
lastly by the community of goods." There you have what is termed an Ideal Christian 
Community! but this was a Reality, and it was not founded by any personal Jesus; nor 
was it a result of his personal teachings being reduced to practice. It preceded, and was 
not a birth of, Historic Christianity. 

Philo tells us that those who retired from the turmoil of public life to dwell apart in 
solitary places (these being the precursors of the monks and nuns in the Roman Church) 
handed over their private property to others, and left their parents, brothers and sisters, 
wife and child, and gave up all to the mysteries of a dedicated life. This, which was a 
common reality with the Essenes, is set forth as an Ideal when the Canonical Teacher 
says— "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father and mother and wife 
and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my 
disciple." Here the ideal is perhaps a trifle overdone. The Essenes did not express or 
inculcate any such spirit of hatred to all one's relations. They were no such rabid antinaturalists 
as that! The peaceful Essenic spirit is not present, but rather the spirit of 
Christian persecution that lighted the fires of martyrdom. 

Of those Essenes who moved about in the world Josephus tells us (he also was an Essene 
in early life who did not find Jesus), "They have no one certain city, but many of them 
dwell in every city; and if any of them come from other places, what they have lies open 
for the strangers, just as if it were their own—for which reason they carry nothing at all 
with them on their travels; nor do they buy or sell anything one to another, but every one 
of those who have gives to him that requires it." 

The Essenes were phenomenal Spiritualists, in the current sense, who walked with open 
sight, and could never become the blind followers of the shut-eyed faith of the 
Historicisers, who banned the "malignant spirit of free inquiry." As Spiritualists they 
could not, and did not, believe in the resurrection of the body, consequently a corporeal 
resurrection of the Christ was a fundamental fallacy upon which no Essene or Gnostic 
could found at any time. So Anti-Christian were they in the Catholic sense, and so 
opposed to the Messiah of pubescence, the Christ according to the flesh, that they 
repudiated anointing with oil, and considered it to be a filthy defilement. Therefore their 
Christ did not depend upon any external anointing in baptism at the age of thirty years, 
and they never could become Christians as the anointed ones. They were the opponents 
of all blood-sacrifice, animal or human. The only sacrifice upheld by them was that of the 
self. Therefore they did not accept the bloody sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God when 
it was proclaimed. The Essenes as Gnostics held that every man must be his own Christ. 
Their Christ came within— the Christ that could not become historical without. In the 
minds of those who knew, Historic Christianity was repudiated beforehand; and it was as 
impossible after the facts were forged, the falsehood established, and the dogma was 
founded, as it was before; consequently those Gnostics who had been Ante-Christians 
beforehand were of necessity Anti-Christians afterwards. 

The Essenes discarded the Pentateuch and repudiated most of the later prophets— that is, 
they rejected the ground-work of the future redemption of mankind, together with the Fall 
that never was a fact, and the fulfilment of prophecy which never could be human. The 
Essenes and other Gnostics are constantly charged by the ignorant Christians with turning 
very plain matters of fact into fantastical parables. M. Renan talks of Simon's and Philo's 
allegorising exegesis as if the ancient fables had been historic facts which the Gnostics 
perverted into myths. They were nothing of the kind. They were fables and allegories 
from the first— the mysteries that were taught in parables— and all Gnostics rejected the 
historic explanation from beginning to end, because they preserved the true interpretation 



of the supposed history. Philo tells us— "They regard the letter of each utterance as the 
symbol of that which was concealed from sight, but was revealed in the hidden 
meaning"— not by its being rationalised into history. Mythology is, in its way, as real as 
mathematics, but its way is not that of the literalisers, who have made the symbolism 
false on the face of it to the underlying natural facts. 

The fall of man, the temptation of the serpent and the coming of a Messiah were not 
historic realities, which the Gnostics converted into their allegories. It is altogether 
misleading to speak of the allegorizing Essenic and Docetic methods of exegesis, as if the 
Gnosis consisted in whittling away and attenuating the solid facts of history! That is 
merely echoing the language of those who were at war with the Gnostic interpretation, on 
behalf of the supposed history by which we have been misled. The allegories were first; 
and they are final; the history had no deeper foundations. The Essenes knew the hidden 
nature of these representations and taught it "through symbols, with time-honoured zeal," 
being in possession of the books of wisdom and other scriptures than ours. They were the 
jealous preservers of the hidden Gnosis, and qualified expounders of the ancient 
mysteries by means of the secret tradition. The initiate was sworn to keep secret the 
scriptures of the hidden wisdom and not to communicate the Gnosis to others, not even to 
a new member except in the same way in which it had been communicated to him. But it 
was especially prescribed that the "Doctrine of the Angels," i.e. of the time cycles, was 
not to be revealed to any non-Essene. Unfortunately that secresy in the mode of 
communication became the fatal curse of all the ancient knowledge by allowing the false 
to come first in being publicly proclaimed. 

De Quincy, in his essay on the Essenes, has remarked on the monstrosity of the omission 
when the Christians are not even mentioned by the Jewish historian, Josephus. There is 
the same portentous omission when the Essenes are never mentioned in the Christian 
Gospels. They are there in fact, though not by name; nor as any new-born brotherhood. 
They are only there in disguise, because historic Christianity has drawn the mask over the 
features of primitive Christianity. The existence of primitive and pre-historic Christians is 
acknowledged in the Gospel according to Mark when John says,— "Master, we saw one 
casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us." That, as the context shows, was 
done in the name of the Christ, and, consequently, such were Christians. According to the 
account in Matthew, before ever a disciple had gone forth or could have begun to preach 
historic Christianity, there was a widespread secret organization ready to receive and 
bound to succour those who were sent out in every city of Israel. Who, then, are these? 
They are called "The Worthy." That is, as with the Essenes, those who have stood the 
tests, proved faithful, and been found worthy. According to the canonical account these 
were the pre-historic Christians, whether called Essenes or Nazarenes; the worthy, the 
faithful, or the Brethren of the Lord. "Peace be with you!" was the greeting or pass-word 
of the Essenes, and also of the Nazarenes, to judge from its appearing in the book of 
Adam. And in the instructions given to the Seventy (Luke x. 5) it is said:— "Into 
whatsoever house ye enter first say, 'Peace be to this house."' 

After the resurrection the mystic pass-word is employed three times over by the risen 
Christ. And "He who comes with peace" is the name of the Egyptian God, Iu-em-hept, 
the son of Atum, who, as the coming son, is Iu-su = Jesus. We also learn from the 
Clementine Homilies (3, 19) that the "Mystery of the Scriptures" which was taught by (or 
ascribed to) Christ was identical with that which from the first had been communicated to 
those who were the Worthy. We may learn from the Gospel according to Luke that the 
"Worthy" were those who had been initiated into the Mysteries of the Gnosis, and who 
were "accounted Worthy" to attain that "resurrection from the dead" in this life, which 
Paul was not altogether sure about— "those who knew that they could die no more, being 
equal to the angels as sons of God and sons of the Resurrection." Such were then extant 
as pre-Historic Christians (ch. xx. 35-6). 



These communities of the primitive Christians had long been accustomed to send forth 
their bare-footed apostles into all the known world, to inculcate the common brotherhood 
of man, founded on the common fatherhood of God, and to labour for the family of the 
human race. That had been the practice in the past which was afterwards made a matter 
of precept in the present, and a prospect for the future! For this ancient practice of the 
Essenes is reduced to the precept of the teacher made personal, who says, "Go your way; 
carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes;" and gives instructions to do the very things the 
Essenes had always done! The supposed personal teacher and historic founder of 
primitive Christianity is made to say to his followers, "A new commandment I give unto 
you that ye love one another." But the statement is entirely untrue. There was nothing 
new in it! This was a primary commandment of the Essenic communities who had 
practised the principles they professed, and had lived for ages according to the golden 
rule which is afterwards laid down as a divine command, a direct revelation from God, in 
the Gospels. No matter who the plagiarist may be, the teaching now held to be divine was 
drawn from older human sources, and palmed off under false pretensions. Josephus 
declares in his account of the Essenes, that "Whatever they say is firmer than an oath; but 
swearing is entirely avoided by them. They consider it worse than perjury." And such is 
the original revelation in the Gospel. But I was sorry to find, in the Clementine Homilies, 
that the same speaker breaks the Essenic pledge, for it is there written,— "And Christ said 
(with an oath), Verily I say unto you, unless ye be born again of the water of life, ye 
cannot enter in the kingdom of heaven." Thus we have an Essene who swears as well as 
tipples and plays the part of Bacchus. Again, Jesus is presented as the original reveal er of 
the mysteries and author of the Gnosis. He says to his disciples,— "It is given you to know 
the mysteries of heaven;" but the Essenic Communities always had been composed of 
those who were in possession of the Gnosis, and had already obtained and sacredly 
preserved the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, which they had 
taught only in parables. 

The divine morality inculcated in the Sayings ascribed to Jesus had been completely 
forestalled by the Essenes in their lives and works, their individual characters, common 
practices, and societary conditions. His words are but a later echo of their very human 
deeds. We are told that Jesus taught mankind to pray,— "Thy kingdom come, thy will be 
done on earth as it is in heaven." But this was exactly what the pre-historic Christians had 
been working out in life. They strove to found the kingdom there and then, and realise the 
world to come in this. Everything noble and ennobling, unselfish and spiritual, in the 
ethics of Jesus, or rather in the sayings assigned to him as a teacher of men, had been 
anticipated by the Egyptians, the Essenes, and the primitive Christians of the Gnostic 
religion. Nothing new remained to be inculcated by the Gospel of the new teacher, who is 
merely made to repeat the old sayings with a pretentious air of supernatural authority; the 
result being that the true sayings of old are, of necessity, conveyed to later times in a 
delusive manner. The commandments are not new. Life and immortality were not 
brought to light by any personal Jesus, but by the Christ of the Gnosis. The most 
important proclamation assigned to Jesus turned out to be false. The kingdom of God was 
not at hand; the world was not nearing its end; the catastrophe foretold never occurred; 
the second coming was no more actual than the first; the lost sheep of Israel are not yet 
saved. And the supposed Divine Truth in very person remains exposed as the genuine 
false prophet to this day, or rather as the mere mouthpiece of the most ignorant beliefs of 
that day. 

It may be said more justly of Historic Christianity, than of anything else within the 
compass of my knowledge, that what is true in it was not new, and that which was new in 
it is not true! It is not new, because it represents the ancient Mythos under an intended 
disguise. It is not true, because it is not a genuine history. The supposed human original, 
set forth in the Gospels, is but the mundane shadow of the Gnostic Christ. 



Christianity began as Gnosticism, refaced with falsehoods concerning a series of facts 
alleged to have been historical, but which are demonstrably mythical. By which I do not 
mean mythical as exaggerations or perversions of historic truth, but belonging to the preextant 
Mythos. Of course, the setting-up of this vast falsehood made all truth a 
blasphemy. "The Gnostics," says Irenaeus, "have no gospel which is not full of 
blasphemy." Their crime was that they denied the Christ carnalised, and they were 
denounced as being Anti-Christian, because they were^wte-Christian! 
We are told in the Book of Acts that the name of the Christiani was first given at 
Antioch; but so late as the year 200 AD. no canonical New Testament was known at 
Antioch, the alleged birth-place of the Christian name. There was no special reason why 
"the disciples" should first have been named as Christians at Antioch, except that this was 
a great centre of the Gnostic Christians, who were previously identified with the 
teachings of the mage Simon of Samaria. Simon had taught the people of Antioch for a 
"long time" before, and had been accepted by them "from the least to the greatest" (Acts). 
Simon was the great Anti-Christ in the eyes of the founders of the belief in Historic 
Christianity, for whom the Ante-Christ was always, and everywhere, the Anti-Christ; and 
it was necessary to account for there being Christians, other, and earlier, than the 
believers in a carnalized Christ. This was clumsily attempted in the "Acts," by making 
Simon become a baptised convert to the new superstition, and then back-sliding~a 
common mode of accounting for Gnostic heretics, but false on the face of it. Irenaeus 
shall furnish us with a crucial instance of the orthodox lying on this subject. He tells us 
that the Gnostics, such as those who followed Valentinus and Marcion, in the second 
century, had no existence before these later teachers (B. III. ch. 4, 3); whereas he had 
already stated in his first book, that Simon of Samaria was the first and foremost of all the 
founders of Gnosticism, and the father of all its heresies; and he was a century earlier. 
Simon had brought in the Gnosis from Alexandria. He taught his doctrines, and wrought 
his wonders long anterior to the apostles of the later creed. Epiphanius acknowledges that 
all the heretical forms of Christianity were derived from the Pagan Mythology —that is, 
they were survivals of the original pre-historic Gnostic religion. 
It is obvious that the Roman Church remained Gnostic at the beginning of the second 
century, and for some time afterwards. Marcion, the great Gnostic, did not separate from 
it until about the year 136 AD. Tatian did not break with it until long after that. In each 
case the cause of quarrel was the same. They left the Church that was setting up the fraud 
of Historic Christianity. They left it as Gnostic Christians, who were anathematised as 
heretics, because they rejected the Christ made flesh and the new foundations of religion 
in a spurious Jewish history. 

The Church in Jerusalem, at the head of which was James, called the "brother of the 
Lord," was one of the Essenic or Therapeutic communities that were founded by the 
Gnostic Nazarenes. James was reputed to have been a follower of Joshua, the Nazarene— 
i.e., Ben Pandira~who was converted more or less into the later Jesus of Nazareth. The 
Jewish legends show that he was of the Nazarene sect. But no Nazarene brotherhood 
could have been founded on any supposed Jesus of Nazareth. They also show that James 
was a Nazarene of the ancient ascetic type—one of those who were set apart and 
consecrated from the mother's womb—one who never shaved or cut his hair, who drank 
neither wine nor strong drink, nor ate of any animal food; he would not anoint himself 
with oil, nor wear woollen garments. Bishop Lightfoot admits that the members of the 
early Church at Jerusalem were Gnostics, like the other Essenes: only, for him, they were 
heretics. He cannot make out the hiatus, which was not then filled in with the Gospel 
history. 

Now, whether it be called Christian or pre-Christian, the Gospel of James is good, as far 
as it goes. It was undoubtedly the same Gospel of the Essenes that opened the poor man's 
door to heaven. It teaches their doctrines in their own language, and without the Historic 



apparatus. It puts certain things which have been disestablished on their original foothold. 
In the Lord's Prayer we are taught to ask the Divine Father not to lead us, his children, 
into temptation. But James declares emphatically that "no man should say he is tempted 
of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man." The 
Epistle of James is of supreme importance. 

Eusebius, the suspected forger and falsifier, when he made his fatal admission, must have 
known that the Scriptures of the Essenes had been utilised as ground-work for the 
Epistles and the later Canonical history. He claims the Essenes themselves as Christians 
when he tells us that Philo "describes with the closest accuracy the lives of our ascetics"— 
that is, of the Therapeutae. He confesses "it is highly probable that the ancient 
commentaries, which Philo says they have, are the very gospels and writings of the 
apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews and many other of Paul's epistles." He might have said, 
including the Ebionite Epistle of James, only that was to be denounced as spurious. But it 
is impossible to claim the Essenic Scriptures as being identical with the Canonical 
records, without, at the same time, admitting their pre-historic existence, their nonhistorical 
nature, and their anti-historical testimony. They could only be the same in the 
time of Eusebius by the non-historical having been falsely converted into the historical. 
This was what had been done, and that alone will explain why the earliest scriptures, 
which ought to have contained the historical record, have not been preserved, but were 
got rid of altogether when the Council of Nice "suppressed all the devices of the 
heretics." 

I have previously shown that the real root of the whole matter can be delved down to and 
identified in the mythology and mysteries of Egypt. When we see the Child-Horus 
emerging from the lily-lotus, or holding the forefinger to his mouth, as portrayed upon 
the Gnostic stones and in the Catacombs of Rome, absolutely the same as on the Egyptian 
monuments, we know that it is the identical divinity, no matter how it came to represent 
the Christian Christ. But identification is more difficult when the mythical type has 
passed into the more mystical phase. That is, the portraits of deities are more recognisable 
than the hidden doctrines and veiled features of the Gnosis. Yet, the Egyptian doctrines 
were as surely continued by the Gnostics and the Christians as the personal likenesses of 
Egyptian deities were reproduced by Gnostic Art in Rome. And by aid of the Gnosis, we 
can recover much that has been dislimned and made indefinite in the doctrinal stage, to 
be left as an unfathomable mystery! For example, the Child-Horus, with finger to mouth, 
wherever found, indicates the divine Word or Logos in a particular way. He was the child 
of the Virgin mother alone, and always remained the child. He, therefore, was not the 
True Voice, or Voice of Truth, only the Imperfect Word, the Inarticulate Discourse, as 
Plutarch calls the first Horus. But, just as the voice of the boy changes and becomes 
manly at puberty, so in his second or virile character Horus, as representative of the 
Father, becomes a True Voice, and is the "Word of Truth" personified! In this character 
he was designated Har-Makheru, i.e., Horus, the "Word of Truth," from Ma, Truth; 
Kheru, the Word. In the Egyptian texts the Word of Horus is Truth; the function confided 
to him by the Father! He vanquishes his enemies with the Word of Truth. It is said of the 
Osirified deceased, He goes forth with the Word of Truth. To make the Truth by means 
of the Word is synonymous with the giving of life here or hereafter. In a prayer to the 
Pharaoh it is said, "Grant us breath by the gift which is in thee of the Word of Truth.'" 
Moreover, men conquer their sins by means of this "Word of Truth" within, the Makheru 
conferred on them by the Deity! 

This title of Makheru, the Word of Truth, was translated the Justified by Dr. Birch, which 
M. Pierret says is "unfortunate." But there is a Christian sense in which that is a correct 
rendering. With the Egyptians, the Christians (o... crhsto...), the faithful Departed, were 
actually called by this title of Makheru or the Justified. They were those who always had 



been saved by the "Word-of-Truth! " in Egypt long Ages before the Christian Era! 
Now, let us return for a moment to the Epistle of James canonised in the New Testament, 
and called by Luther "an Epistle of Straw," because it had not a grain of Historic 
Christianity in it. James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem. He was titled a brother 
of the Lord—no doubt in relation to the Nazarite Brotherhood; the Lord being a typical 
character like Horus, Mana, or Elias, who was ignorantly assumed by the literalizers of 
legends to have been a Judean peasant named Jesus or Joshua. Hence the imposition of 
certain family details in the Canonical Gospels, which will be traced hereafter. James is 
believed to have died about AD. 60. But in the whole seven chapters of this Epistle of 
James, excepting an opening salutation, there is not one single sign of Historic 
Christianity! It recognises no Jesus of Nazareth, and it announces no salvation through 
the atoning blood, the death, resurrection and ascension of a personal Christ. 
Nothing whatever begins with or is based on the history which was afterwards made 
canonical, nor on the Christ that was localized at a later stage of development. Everything 
is absent that was and still is essential to the physical faith. Instead, we find the exact 
opposite of all that was made historic in the Gospels. The doctrine of salvation is Gnostic, 
Essenic and Egyptian. Salvation, according to James, cometh of the "Word of Truth." 
Speaking of the "Father of Lights" (Lord of Lights being a title of Horus) he says:— "Of 
his own will begat he us with the 'Word of Truth 1 that we should be a kind of first fruits 
of his creatures." "Wherefore receive ye with meekness the implanted Word which is able 
to save your souls." The transaction is direct between the divine father and the human 
soul. The Christ within is the only saviour! The total teaching of the Epistle of James is 
based on this ancient Egyptian Word of Truth; the implanted Word which confers the 
Makheru on man, which never could be represented by an historical Christ. The "Word of 
Truth" as rendered by James is the best possible translation of the Egyptian "Ma-Kheru." 
Moreover, the context shows that the Word of Truth is the Egyptian Makheru by the 
exhortation, "Be ye doers of the Word," which renders good Egyptian doctrine in perfect 
accordance with exact Egyptian phraseology. 

Just as Horus Makheru was the Word of Truth; or that which was said was fulfilled 
indeed, so men are re-begotten in the divine likeness by the Word of Truth; and as livers 
or doers of that Word they are to be saved— as it was taught in Egypt thousands of years 
previously without the Word of Truth becoming incarnate in Horus as a human person. 
This Word of Truth, the Christ of James and Paul, which alone was able to save, is 
identical with that made known aforetime, which needed not to be brought down from 
heaven for any personal incarnation; needed not to be brought up from the dead by any 
physical resurrection; needed not to be sent from over the sea, because, as was said by the 
Mosaic mouthpiece of Egypt's Wisdom, "that Word is in thy heart that thou mayest do 
it! " And this is the position re-occupied; this is the teaching re-echoed by Paul, in whose 
mouth the Word of Truth becomes doubly anti-historic (cf. Deut. xxx. 12-14, with 
Romans x. 6, 7). 

There is also a reference to the "Word of Truth" in Paul's Epistle to Timothy, which still 
further identifies the Makheru. The word Ma, for that which is true, originally means to 
hold out straight before one. And Paul exhorts Timothy, as a workman, to hold a straight 
course according to the Ma-kheru, or "Word of Truth." This True Voice or Word of Truth 
is, I take it, that living and abiding voice which is appealed to by Papias as evidence for 
his Christ, who was the Lord of the Logia; and, if so, his testimony thus far does not 
make for, but tends to invalidate, the history. Of course, he is supposed to mean the voice 
of contemporaries when he decries what would be the more certain voice of written 
records; but that is not what he means. He prefers, in reality, the traditions of the oral 
wisdom, and may be claimed as another witness for the non-Historical Christ. Also, the 
epistle to Diognetus, supposed to have been written by Marcion, contains the same 
doctrine as the epistle of James. Speaking of the Gnostic Christians, he says:— "They are 



put to death and they come to life again," and the reason of this is that "God the Invisible 
hath himself from Heaven planted the truth and the holy incomprehensible Word and 
established him in their hearts." This epistle of James is indefinitely older than the 
Canonical history. James is believed to have died about the year 60 of our era, and in this, 
one of the earliest utterances of the Church, instead of the History, we find the divine 
Makheru of the Egyptian mythos in a mystical and doctrinal phase. 
Instead of an original gospel based on the life, character, and teachings of his own human 
brother, James presents us with the translated Word-of-truth--the Horus of Egypt, and the 
Christ of the Gnostics, who could not become historical. This beginning, then, is 
doctrinal, and the doctrine, like the portrait, is Egyptian. The same mythos was visibly 
continued in the Gnostic phase. In the Gospels, which were being compiled at least one 
hundred years later, we find this same Word of Truth, which was personated by Horus- 
Makheru and by Iu-em-hept in Egypt some 3,000 years earlier, is now represented in a 
personal character as Jesus the Christ. 

This Word of Truth, which is doctrinal and non-historical, according to James, is the 
Word of Truth made flesh according to John. Also, the Christ is the Horus continued in 
his two characters. Hence the Word, or Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, 
is to come as the mystic Paraclete who shall testify to the reality of an historic Jesus. 
These two characters, as the Sayer and Doer, constitute the double foundation of the 
Christ in the other Gospels. The Christ of Matthew is chiefly the Sayer. The Christ of 
Luke is mainly the Doer. He is mighty in deed and word! He is the Healer or Doer with 
the Word. "What a Word is this"! exclaim the multitude, who are amazed at the miracles. 
Both characters had been blended in one as Horus-Makheru, the Word of Truth, who was 
mythical in Egypt, and who is mythical in the teaching of James before the Word was 
described as being made flesh, to become an historical personage in the later Gospel 
according to John. This is the fatal kind of fact that turns the canonical history into 
fiction, and brands the falsifiers full in the face. There is no room left here for any 
historic fulfilment, and no need of any personal Savior or vicarious victim. The Word of 
Truth is the Spirit of God, the Begetter of Souls, the Christ within, the Bringer of 
Immortality to Man, as it is in the teaching of Hermes, of Zarathustra, of Philo, and of 
Paul, as well as James; as it was in Egypt, in Chaldea, in India, in all the Mysteries, no 
matter where the Gnosis or Kabalah may be found. In presence of the Gnosis, here as 
elsewhere, there is no place, no significance, in the alleged facts of a human history, lived 
for us by a carnalised Christ. And yet such a history was made out, and we are now able 
to get a glimpse of the forgers engaged in the process of making it out! 
Our Canonical Gospels are a Palimpsest, with one writing so elaborated over another that 
the first is almost crossed out, and the rest are thoroughly confused. Yet, the whole of 
them have to be seen through before the matter can be really read. By holding this 
Palimpsest up to the light, and looking at it long and closely, we can trace the large 
outline, the water-mark, of the Egyptian mythos, with its virgin-mother, who was Hathor- 
Meri— the Madonna—its child-Christ of 12 years, and the virile adult of 30 years, who was 
Horus, the anointed son of that Father in heaven whom he came to reveal. This is the 
earliest and most fundamental of the nuclei. Next we find a collection of Sayings as the 
nucleus of the Gospel of Matthew. These sayings were attributed to the Lord, and that 
Lord is supposed to have been a Judean peasant, as the original author! It is noticeable, 
though, that the title of the Lord is not once applied to Jesus by Matthew in the earth-life, 
but after the resurrection he is called the "Lord." Now, it is well known to scholars that 
the Gospel according to Luke is based upon, or concocted, with suitable alterations, from 
an earlier "Gospel of the Lord." That is, the latest gospel according to the Gnostics, 
preceded the earliest of those that were made canonical. This was called the "Gospel of 
the Lord"— the kurios— and it is commonly referred to as the gospel of Marcion, the great 
Gnostic. But the Lord, as known to the Gnostics, was not a character that could become 



historical. As Irenaeus declares, according to no one gospel of the heretics could the 
Christ become flesh; consequently the gospel of Marcion, who was the arch-heretic and 
very Anti-Christ of the second century, in the sight of the incipient Catholic Church, 
could not have been a gospel of the Christ made historical; and we have now the means 
of proving that it was not. When once we know that the origins were mythical, that the 
Christ was mystical, and the teachings in the mysteries were typical, we shall be able to 
utilise the gospel of Marcion as a connecting link between the Egyptian Mythos, the 
epistle of the Word of Truth, and the canonical history according to Luke. 
"The Lord" had been Horus by name in Egypt, and the Greek kuriou, or kudos, agrees 
with the Egyptian kheru, for the Word, Voice, or Logos, as in Ma-kheru (earlier, Makhuru). 
This was the Lord continued as the Gnostic manifestor, their Horus, or Christ. 
Marcion assigned his gospel to the Christ, in the same way that the Egyptian Ritual is 
ascribed to Hermes. Later on, the sayings of the Lord were also called the writings, as we 
see by pseudo-Dionysius, who charges the Gnostics with having falsified the Writings of 
the Lord. 

Marcion claimed that his was the one true Gospel—the one—and he pointed to the 
multiplicity of the Catholic Gospels, full as they were of discrepancies, in proof that they 
could not be genuine. In the fourth century even, there were as many different gospels as 
texts. As transmitted to us by the Christian copyists, who were nothing if not 
historicisers, Marcion's gospel opens with the statement, that "In the fifteenth year of the 
reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate ruling in Judea, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a 
city of Galilee," or "into Judea," as reported by Irenaeus. 

Tertullian says,— "According to the gospel of Marcion, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, 
Christ Jesus deigned to emanate from heaven, a salutary spirit. " But, he also says, 
according to this "Great Anti-Christian," the Christ was a phantom, who appeared 
suddenly at the synagogue of Capernaum in the likeness of a full-grown man for the 
purpose of protesting against the law and the prophets! It would be difficult to date the 
descent of a phantom Christ, and impossible to date the descent of the Gnostic Christ at 
all, except as Lord of the aeon in relation to an astronomical period! But it is certain that 
the Lord or Christ of Marcion is entirely non-historical. He has no genealogy or Jewish 
line of descent; no earthly mother, no father, no mundane birthplace or human birth. The 
Gnostic nature of this Christ is further and fully corroborated by both Irenaeus and 
Tertullian. Clearly then nothing can be made of the statement on behalf of the Canonical 
history. This statement in Marcion's gospel takes the place of the baptism and descent of 
the holy spirit in Luke's; and this same date is quoted by Luke for the time when the 
Word of God came to John in the wilderness, which is followed by the baptism of Jesus 
and the transformation into the Christ or Horus of 30 years, whose unpronounceable 
name contained 30 letters, according to the Gnosis. Such a beginning is entirely 
unhistorical, and applicable solely to the mythical Christ, who became the virile adult, the 
anointed son of the father at 30 years of age. Of course Christian apologists like Irenaeus 
and Tertullian maintained that Marcion had mutilated their version of Luke; and they 
managed to get rid of the "Gospel of the Lord," and to suppress the writings of Marcion 
in proof to save us the trouble of judging for ourselves. But that was only another 
Christian lie, as we have now the means of knowing. The Gnostics were not the falsifiers 
of the historic scriptures; it was not they who had anything to falsify! Hitherto the forgers 
and falsifiers have been believed, and now the accusers and accused are about to change 
places in the witness-box and the dock. Everywhere the Gnosis was first; the history was 
last. You are only asked to take this view tentatively, and then let us watch the process 
and see how the compilers and forgers of our Luke put in the touches by which the 
mythos was rationalized and the human history was added to the Gnostic "Gospel of the 
Lord." The "Sayings of the Lord" were first, and they were not personal. The "Gospel of 
the Lord" was first, and the Lord was not historical. 



The Jesus of Marcion like the Jesus of Esdras, of Paul, and other Gnostics, is no Jesus of 
Nazareth. This title has been added by Luke. Marcion's Jesus being mythical and not 
historical, he has no Jewish father and mother; consequently we find the test question:— 
"Is not this Joseph's son?" does not appear in the "Gospel of the Lord." It has been added 
by Luke. Again, the statement, "there came to him his mother and brethren; and they 
could not get at him for the crowd" (Luke viii. 9), is not to be found in Marcion's gospel; 
it has been added by Luke. And for what? but to manufacture and make out that human 
history which was at last believed in, but which had no place in any gospel according to 
the Gnostics or true primitive Christians! It can be proved how passage after passage has 
been added to the earlier gospel, in the course of manufacturing the later history. For 
example, the mourning over Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 29-35) is taken verbatim from the 2nd 
Esdras (i. 28-33) without acknowledgment, and the words previously uttered by the 
"Almighty Lord" are here assigned to Jesus as the original speaker. The account of 
Pilate's shedding the blood of the Galileans and mingling it with their sacrifices (Luke 
xiii. 1) has been added by some one so ignorant of Hebrew history, that he has ascribed to 
Pilate an act which was committed when Quirinus was governor, twenty-four years 
earlier than the alleged appearance of Jesus. Again, the anti-Nazarene, anti-Gnostic 
passage about the publicans being baptised with water, and the Son of Man coming 
eating and drinking as a glutton and a wine-bibber, has been added. 
In the scene on the Mount of Transfiguration, which is purely mythical, and therefore 
common to Osiris, Buddha, and Zarathustra, we are witness to the forging of another 
historical nexus in the statement that "Moses and Elijah appeared in glory and spake of 
his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke ix. 3 1). This passage 
does not appear in the "Gospel of the Lord." Nor does the statement (Luke xviii. 3 1-34), 
"And he took unto him the Twelve, and said unto them, 'Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, 
and all things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished by the Son of Man.'" 
This mode of making out the history in the New Testament by fulfilment of prophecy 
found in the Old was not adopted by the compilers of Marcion's "Gospel of the Lord." 
The story of the colt and the riding into Jerusalem in triumph, to turn all the Jews out of 
their sacred Stock Exchange, are additions to the earlier Gospel! In the scene of the Last 
Supper almost the whole of the text is missing from Marcion's Gospel. Twelve verses of 
Luke 22 have been added! 

In Marcion's Gospel there is no distribution of the Paschal Cup amongst the disciples; no 
promise is given that the Apostles shall eat and drink and judge the twelve tribes of Israel 
in the kingdom of Christ; nor is there any appointment made with the dying thief on the 
Cross to meet him that day in Paradise! These have been added. Now, this is no mere 
matter of a difference in doctrine! We are witnessing the very forgery of the human 
foundations and the insertion of the manufactured facts upon which the history was 
established. 

The Primitive Christiani, the so-called heretics, who preceded the historic Christians, 
were all of them spiritualists in the modern sense. 

In the sight of Bishop Lightfoot the Gnostic Spiritualism was "a shadowy mysticism 
which loses itself in the contemplation of an unseen world." This he looks upon as the 
false teaching and the heresy of the Gnostics! He knows nothing of any underlying 
natural verities, or phenomenal facts; only sees a refining, a mysticising and a whittling 
away of the Gospel histories. 

But as practical Spiritualists, the Essenes had eight stages in the evolution of perfect 
personal purity and the attainment of the highest spiritual powers:— 

1. Purity of baptism. 

2. Purity from animal desire. 

3 . Spiritual purity. 



4. The purity of a meek and gentle spirit. 

5. The purity of holiness. 

6. The purity by which the body became a temple of the Holy Ghost. 

7. The purity which gave the power of healing the sick and of raising 
the dead; i.e., the spirits of the dead! 

8. They attained the mystic state of Elias, who was the Essenic Christ! 

And in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Bishop Lightfoot rises to 
explain that the Essenes were Fortune-tellers! 

Orthodox Christianity knows nothing of Spiritualism to-day, and consequently can know 
nothing of Spiritualism in the past, because it is fact alone that can prove the fact. They 
reject it because it was repudiated by the founders of the historic faith; because it offers 
no facts to prove, whereas it does offer facts that furnish us with disproof of a physical 
resurrection. But it is absolutely necessary to be a phenomenal Spiritualist, or at least to 
know that phenomenal Spiritualism is founded upon facts of possible human experience, 
before we can take the first step toward really understanding this matter of the 
beginnings, or gauge the impassable gulf of difference that lies between the Gnostic 
Religion and Historic Christianity. With the Gnostics knowledge was the foundation of 
their faith; but the Historic Christians made faith the basis of knowledge, and the first 
demand of the new faith was for the convert to believe that all the mythical typology of 
the past had been made literally true in the present. By faith the fable was crystallised 
into the dogma of historic fact. 

The Gnostic doctrines of the pre-Historic religion were formulated as being those of 
knowledge, faith, and immortality. Knowledge was fundamental. On this their faith was 
founded by means of a first-hand acquaintanceship with those facts which gave them 
their faith for the present, and sustained it with something more than the hope or promise 
of continuity for the future. Knowledge, Faith, and Immortality! Historic Christianity was 
based upon faith without that knowledge, and those who knew the least were actually 
considered and designated the better believers, just as it is in the Salvation Army of today. 
Lord Bacon, in a most unworthy utterance, affirmed that "the more irrational and 
incredible any divine mystery is the greater the honour we do God in believing it, and so 
much the more noble is the victory of faith." Such, however, was the teaching of the 
Church whose divine mysteries were manufactured from misinterpreted mythology. Nor 
was it very difficult to literalise the mystical representation when a man like Origen could 
maintain that the planets were animated bodies and rational beings. 
All the secrets of the great knowledge of the interior and mystical life, which M. Renan 
calls the "Most glorious creation of Christendom," were in possession of the Gnostics of 
various lands long ages earlier, whilst their modus operandi of ascertaining the truth was 
now to be rejected and denounced as damnable by the corporeal Christians, or carnalisers 
of the Christ. They not only let go, they anathematised the knowledge that was already 
won from nature, and prohibited the means of continuing it or of recovering it again. 
The Gnostics, as Irenaeus shows, pointed out the very serious error that was committed by 
those who imagined that the Christ had arisen in a mundane body, not knowing that 
"flesh and blood do not attain to the Kingdom of God! " 

The Christ of the Gnostics was a mystical type continued from mythology to portray a 
spiritual reality of the interior life. Hence the Christ in this human phase could be female 
as well as male; Sophia as well as Jesus; the spirit of both sexes. It was impossible for 
such to become historical, or be made so, except by ignorantly mistaking a mythical 
Impersonation for a Hermaphrodite in Person! 

What, for example, is the actual base of the "Great Renunciation" ascribed to the Buddha 
or the Christ in the doctrinal, mythical, or spiritual phase? It is this: —When the soul of 
man came to be considered as a divine principle of celestial origin, it was figured as 



being entirely opposed to the evil nature of matter; therefore, birth or manifestation in 

matter was a descent of the soul from the heaven of pristine condition into a lower state 

of impurity and impermanence; of disease, decay, and death, where it was bound to bear 

or struggle to get out of it again as soon as possible. 

This soul, personified as the Divine Man in Buddha or the Christ is afterwards 

represented as being consciously able to renounce the pleasures of Paradise, and of its 

own free will and choice come down to earth as the Saviour of the World, by giving 

lessons in divinity and living a life so lowly that this life should be conquered by 

rejecting it on behalf of the other thus revealed to men! The mode of glorifying such a 

being is simply that of the infantile mind. The proof of his supernatural character is 

shown through his power of suspending the known laws of nature by miraculous means, 

such as are humanly impossible. As the Lord of Life he raises the dead! The tree bends 

down and bows its acknowledgment to him in the womb of his mother; or the wild beasts 

grow tame in presence of the radiant child that lights the darkness of the cave when born. 

As a mere babe he becomes a teacher to the teachers. In youth he surpasses all 

competitors, conquers in every trial. All nature is turned into an elastic vesture that will 

fit this figure of the impossible—the false Ideal that makes our common everyday world a 

scene of phantasmal unrealities. In certain respects the Buddhist portrait of this divine 

Ideal, believed to have been realised in Gautama, transcends the Christian—in the depths 

of its tenderness, the range of its sympathies, and the embrace of its compassion. All true 

lovers of animals are naturally Buddhistic rather than Christian. For, it is upon the downtrodden 

beasts which perish that the Christian sets his foot for the first step upward as the 

possessor of an immortal soul. His brutalising belief, and baseless assumption, that 

animals have no souls, are guilty before God and responsible for most of the cruelties 

suffered by them throughout all Christendom to-day! 

In his large love for the dumb things this Hindu Ideal Redeemer is greater, and stoops 

lower than the would-be Saviour of human beings alone, and only the Jewish part of 

them, who is portrayed as the Canonical Christ. But cui bono? when it is only an Ideal 

and that Ideal takes the place of possible reality. These false Ideals are forever fatal to 

human verity. What has the worship of Mary ever done for woman in the character of 

wife? You cannot live by a Lay figure. When once we know it to be unreal, whether as 

the Christ, or Buddha, or Madonna, it becomes a type that we cannot print from any 

longer, because it fails to impress deeply enough. 

Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never 

existed as a person. That pre-historic Ideal Christ of the Gnosis had always personated 

the divine in human form, the Immortal incarnated, the Majesty within superior to all the 

physical conditions without, with power to bear and serve, to serenely suffer the ills of 

flesh, become a sacrifice and glory in the Cross of its earthly suffering. 

Spiritual mediums were considered to be a kind of intermediate beings, because they first 

demonstrated the existence of a living link betwixt the divine mind and matter in the 

human form. But the original intermediate being was the spiritual nature itself, called the 

Son of God, the Christ within, which constituted that living link in whomsoever it 

existed. No human medium could become the Christ of the Gnosis, who represented a 

principle which could only become a person in a future state of being— never in this 

world. So was it before the history alleged to have been lived, and so the fact remains today, 

and for ever. The historical was an impossible mode of realis ing that which could 

only be a spiritual possibility; and thus the truth according to the Gnosis has been 

refracted in the falsehood according to the History. 

The Gnostic Christ was the real founder of Christianity! This was the Christ of the first 

Christians, and this was their model man, the Ideal meek and lowly one, which the 

writers of the Gospels have sought to realise in the form of historic personality. This 

lunar, solar, mystical, or spiritual type could not be made historical in the creed of those 



who knew, i.e., the Gnostics. But it was humanized; it was turned into a one person, who 
became the one Christ in this world, and the one spirit of all others, for those who did not 
know. For the earliest appeal of the new faith was made to men who were so ignorant, 
according to the record, that when they had just witnessed a rising from the dead of 
certain historic characters, they did not comprehend what this rising again from the dead 
should mean! 

Historic Christianity had retained possession of a dead Christ, the mere husk of the grub, 
together with a vague belief in the butterfly; and if you, likewise, believe in its one dead 
grub, you may cultivate the hope of some day, also, becoming a butterfly. But, for the 
Gnostics, the transformation from the chrysalis condition of matter to the spiritual was a 
natural fact of which they had an ever-present vitalising consciousness. They were 
transforming and seeking attainment all their life through; and their Christ was the 
representative type of that transformation of the mortal into an immortal. 
Historic Christianity abolished the Gnostic spiritualism for all who accepted the false 
belief! Henceforth there was but one spirit, that of the historic Bringer of Immortality to 
Light; and, if any apparition appeared to the abnormal or normal vision, it would be the 
historic Christ for ever after! It was so with the vision of Paul, which was reported and 
perverted in the Book of Acts. When his inner eyes were opened he saw spirits—as 
Swedenborg and many others are reported to have done—whereupon they avowed he had 
seen the risen Jesus, their only witness for a spirit-world! So has it been with the non- 
Spiritualists ever since, for whom an apparition must be the Christ. In an island near 
Rotterdam, says Renan, the peasants believe that Christ comes to the bed of death to 
assure the elect of their justification. In point of fact many see him! On the other hand, 
the Buddhist "Lotus" declares that thousands of Buddhas show their faces to the virtuous 
man at the moment of his decease, which proves the Buddhas to be spirits. So has it been 
with the ecstatics and mediums in all the religious sects. Whenever they saw a spirit they 
saw Jesus the Christ their Saviour, because they knew of no other spirit or name— the 
history being established for the other world as well as in this— and so one delusion was 
bound to support the other; the true vision was made untrue; and all the facts of 
spiritualism have been falsified and turned into lying witnesses, to substantiate the truth 
of the Gospel history. All such manifestations as had previously occurred and had been 
attributed to the spirits of the departed, were now ascribed to the power of Christ, in 
whose name the prophesying was performed, the healing effected, and the mental 
medicine dispensed. Henceforth there was to be no other name under heaven but this. In 
this name only were the Gentiles to have hope. Redemption was made dependent on this 
name; cripples were cured, the blind made to see, devils were cast out, the dead raised, 
sins remitted, souls saved, and eternal life ensured by belief on this name supposed to be 
New. At the mention of this name the dead arose up out of their graves, and, according to 
the testimony of Irenaeus, they survived amongst the living many years! So much more 
potent was faith than fact. The earlier spiritualism was founded upon facts in nature, 
which did not need the desperate expedient of a miracle to explain. But in the later cult 
the more the miracle the larger loomed the supernatural, and the broader were the 
foundations for the belief that was based on faith instead of facts, and on Materialism 
plus Miracle. 

They accounted for the spiritual phenomena of the Gnostics by declaring, as Justin 
Martyr did, that when the devil and the demons knew that Christ was believed on, and 
that he was expected "in every race," they put forth Simon, Menander, and the other 
Gnostics to deceive the multitude with magic. Because Spiritualism was naturally and for 
ever at war with the historical misinterpretation, Justin asserts that after the ascension of 
Christ into Heaven, the demons put forward certain men like Simon to declare that they 
were the Gods. Whereas, historic Christianity proclaimed them to be devils; and devils 
they have remained ever since, according to the false belief. 



The founders of the Catholic Church were the de-Spiritualizers of primitive Christianity, 
and the destroyers of the Gnostic religion as such, by placing their ban upon all 
Spiritualistic phenomena! The foundations of the ancient cult were to be built upon no 
longer. 

In the recently discovered Didache or the "Teaching of the Apostles," the facts of 
Spiritualism are admitted, and the practices of the prophets are recognized. They are 
spoken of as "ordering a table in the spirit," and of "assembling together for a Cosmic 
mystery." But those are the true mediums alone who have the "manners of the Lord;" and 
the law as laid down in these Didache is:~"Thou shalt not play the mage! Thou shalt not 
practise witchcraft" —or spirit-intercourse. No prophet that speaks as one of the possessed 
is to be tried or tolerated. "Every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." 
It was now and henceforth to be Spiritualism without spirits, abstract and ideal, not 
tangible or real, an article of faith versus fact. We see from the Epistle of John how 
mortally afraid of Gnostic Spiritualism were the founders of the historical fraud. "Many 
deceivers are gone forth into the world that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the 
flesh." These words of John state the Gnostic position. Their Christ had not so come, and 
could not be carnalized. These Gnostics were in the world long before they heard of such 
a doctrine; but when they did they denied and opposed it. This, says John, is the anti- 
Christ. But, "every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of 
God; and every spirit which annulleth Jesus is not of God. And this is the spirit of the 
anti-Christ whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already." 
A story is told of two early English saints, one of whom was supposed to have died. They 
were about to bury him, when, as he was being lowered into the grave, face upward and 
uncovered, he opened wide his ghostly staring eyes and told them he had only fallen into 
a trance. He had been into the other world, and found that what they were preaching 
about it in this was not true. There was no "Fall of Man," he said. "There is no hell," he 
cried; "no personal Christ—no Redeemer." But here his fellow-saint outside the grave 
interposed— "For God's sake fill in the earth and stop the blasphemer's mouth!" They did 
so, and the rest of his revelation remained unknown. That was how the Catholic 
Christians dealt with the Gnostic Spiritualists when they had the power. They would shut 
up the living mouth of the Spirit-world, because the reports from the other side were fatal 
to the Historic fiction. They broke down the bridge between the two worlds, and 
proclaimed a great gulf fixed forever, which could only be crossed by faith in the Historic 
Jesus. Here the movement of Historic Christianity was a direct and deliberate shunting of 
the human mind from off the main line, the highway of its natural development, and 
running it head first into all sorts of bye-ways and blind alleys, from which we have had 
to turn back and grope out again as best we could for any progress to be made. 
Historic Christianity originated with turning the Gnostic and Esoteric teachings inside out 
and externalising the mythical allegory in a personal human history. All that was interior 
with the knowers was made objective; all that was spiritual in significance was embodied 
to be made palpable for the ignorant. A corporeal Christ was substituted for the transcorporeal 
man— a Christ whose advent was without, instead of the one that must be 
evolved within— a personal Saviour who died for all, instead of the Christ that was the 
living Spirit working within all. It was remarked by Augustine (de Civ. Dei, 7, 24) that 
the Gnostics "promised eternal life to anybody"— that is, with them the soul of man was 
an eternal principle, and the resurrection was not cunningly reserved for the elect who 
accepted the Historic belief. The Gnostic claimed to be illuminated by the presence of the 
Christ within; the Christian, according to Justin, by the name of the Christ without. And a 
very curious mental link of connection between the genuine Gnostic and the counterfeit 
Historic Christ is apparent in the Ignatian Epistle to the Smyrneans. The writer says— "I 
know that even after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe that he is so still." 
Now this combines both, after a fashion. 



The writer is seeking to establish the history against those who denied that the Christ 
could be made a man. In doing this, he has recourse to the Gnostic Christ, who always 
was in the flesh, or matter, as the salt of soul, and the only spiritual Saviour from death 
and dissolution. Speaking from his Gnostic standpoint, Paul declared to the historic 
Christians who followed John and Peter, that God had sent them a working of error, that 
they should believe a lie, because they rejected the truth as it was according to his 
spiritual Gospel! The lie was established by externalising the Christ that can only dwell 
within—by successfully falsifying for a time that truth which is true for ever. In this way, 
you see, that the coming of the Holy Spirit, which always had been within, was 
henceforth to be without. Thus, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus, in Jordan, is an 
external transaction. The Holy Spirit that comes from heaven in the form of a dove— a 
Gnostic type of the Spirit; that is, of both sexes— or, later on, as a whirlwind, in which the 
Gust and Ghost are one. In the course of this conversion of the inner to the outer, we are 
told that the Holy Ghost, which always had been extant with the Gnostics, was not yet 
given, because the Historical Jesus was not yet glorified; but after he had risen from the 
grave, and returned bodily to the disciples, he breathed upon them, and said, "Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost." And again: the Holy Ghost, as an external effusion, could not be given 
until after forty days; whereas, in the Essenic Mysteries, the body of the disciple became 
the temple of the Holy Ghost when he had reached the sixth stage of interior progress. 
This shows the literalisers of the legend, the rationalisers of the mythos, the anti-mystics, 
the Exoterists, externalising the Gnosis, and converting the matter of it into human 
history. There was to be neither Spirit within nor Spirit-world without for the ignorant 
Christians, until the resurrection and ascension of Jesus had historically established both. 
Two distinct charges are brought against the Carnalizers by Tatian in the second century. 
He cries out shame upon the Catholic Church, and exclaims, "You have given the 
Nazarite wine to drink, and commanded the prophets, saying, 'Prophesy not.'" They were 
debauching the Christian community and destroying the primitive Nazarite purity which 
Tertullian claimed for the Christians when he said, "We are they of whom it is written, 
'Their Nazarites are whiter than snow.'" Next, they have determined to put an end to 
practical spiritualism on behalf of the new faith; and this is treated by Tatian as part of a 
subtle scheme for destroying the purity and spirituality of that Christianity which was 
primitive and non-historic, too! 

The transformations of the Pagan cult into the Christian, and of the Gnostic into the 
historical representation, were effected behind the veil identifiable as the "Discipline of 
the Secret," the strictness of which was only relaxed after the fourth century, when the 
Truth had been hidden in a fog of falsehood; the inner mysteries turned to an outer mist, 
that made confusion cunningly complete. 

The Gnostic Spiritualism was declared illegal and impious. The objective realities of the 
phenomenal Spiritualists, which had heretofore furnished the one bit of foothold in 
natural fact for a belief in the future life, were now discarded on behalf of the more 
subjective idealities derived from a faith that was founded by means of a fraudulent 
history mis-translated from a mystical fable. 

The Roman Church adopted the Angels and Archangels of the Celestial Allegory as its 
Saints, including Saint Bacchus and Saint Satan in place of Guardian Spirits that were 
once human beings. 

A dogma of the Real Presence of the Historic Christ was now substituted for the Real 
Presence of Spirit Friends in the earlier communion. 

The mysteries in which the early Christian Neophytes had been initiated into a lawful 
communion with the dead were gradually suppressed; and in the sixth century we find the 
doctrine of a communion with the saints was substituted for the practical intercourse with 
spirits. It happens that the time when the doctrine was inserted in the Creed coincides 
almost exactly with the suppression of the mysteries which were connected with the socalled 



Agapae of the early Christians! The Agapae were only a continuation of the ancient 
Pagan funeral feasts and Eucharistic rites in honour of the departed. Hence they were 
held in the cemeteries and catacombs in presence of the dead, where the mummy-type or 
the Karest was the Christ, as the image of rising again; the image that was carried round 
and pointed to as a cause for festive rejoicing at the Egyptian feast! In this way we can 
watch the false faith taking the place of the facts. And as the Gnostic sects and 
brotherhoods gave up the ghost, Historic Christianity assumed their glory. In this strange 
scene of transformation and dramatic illusion by some Satanic sleight of hand and turn of 
head, the afterglow of the ancient religions was changed into the dawn of the superseding 
faith, which was then proclaimed to be the fountain-head of all future enlightenment! or 
rather the waning light of ancient knowledge has been mistaken for the dawning of the 
New Belief; a dawn that was followed by the grey twilight that deepened into the 
thousand-years-long intellectual night of the Dark Ages. 

It matters not what may be the relative share of responsibility attributable to knavery on 
the one hand and ignorance on the other, the fact remains that a huge and hideous mistake 
has been made, an irretrievable error committed in the name of Historic Christianity. For 
ages past the false faith did feed the flames of martyrdom with the fires of hell on pretext 
of giving light to them that it had covered with its smoke of torment and pall of darkness. 
And now the sun of a better day has arisen to put out the fires infernal, to disperse the 
clouds of human sighs, that have obscured the heavens so long, and to aid in drying the 
tears from our afflicted earth at last. Revelation, by means of Evolution, has now made 
known for ever that the fall of man was not historic fact. Humanity has not to bear the 
penally eternally for a divine failure in the beginning of time. This world is not a prisonhouse 
of fallen beings. Consequently, the promised redemption and proffered mode of 
salvation are a vain delusion, and all in vain has the spirit of the living Christ within been 
compelled to drag the dead body of the corporeal Christ from the grave for the purpose of 
proving the history for the ignorant, until its corruption is a sickening stench in the 
nostrils of the nations, and there is a clamour for the burial that shall get rid of both 
together. The history of Christ as our impersonated Saviour on earth, equally with the 
story of Adam's fall from Eden, is mythology misbelieved. The Old Testament was read 
backwards to be re-written as the New. The only original elements in this interpolation 
between the ancient Gnosis and modern science are those that prove false to the 
governing laws of the universe, and those facts of nature which make the sole true 
revelation. Theory avails nothing in the presence of the fact that Historic Christianity was 
founded on the "Resurrection of the Flesh," and that it has left the world where it was 
itself, after putting out the Gnostic Light, all in the dark concerning our spiritual 
continuity in death! Canon Gregory said only the other day if Jesus did not rise 
corporeally from the tomb, then that tomb must be the grave of Christianity. And the 
"Spectator" for August 13, 1887, speaking of the Greeks who died before the 
Resurrection was thus historically established, says:~"In the nature of things the Greeks 
could have had no sure hope of a glorious resurrection." Such was and is, when honestly 
confessed, the genuine Christian creed. It does seem to me as if those arch-forgers in 
Rome had subtly succeeded in converting that which was true in the old religion into a 
secret support for all that was false in the new. Gnostic Christianity was absolutely, 
fundamentally, and for ever opposed to the historic rendering, and yet the Gnostic 
doctrines of the fourth Gospel, and of Paul's and James' Epistles, have been allowed to 
remain under cover and control as spiritual forces artfully tethered to draw for the 
physical and anti-Gnostic Faith. I am sometimes compelled to say to myself it has been 
most devilishly done! —and so have we! 

We have Spiritualists to-day who lay hold of the Scriptures, or can be laid hold of, by 
means of the Gnosis that remains there as a lure, and turn it to the account intended, that 
is, as a decoy towards accepting the history. And so when the risen Christ reappears in 



the actual body that is missing from the grave, they are prepared to explain away the 
physical fact by means of the spiritual Gnosis. In that way nothing is bottomed, and 
nothing can be really understood; but, —the purpose of the promoters, who were the 
founders of the falsehood, and who founded it well-nigh unfathomably, —their purpose 
continues to be fulfilled. 

In writing to a Christian spiritualist the other day, I said, "I know no better way of waging 
the battle for Truth than arraying the facts face to face on either side and letting them 
fight it out." His reply was, "I do not believe in your facts because I do not know." Now, 
that is good firm ground to stand upon, however late in life we take the position. But, to 
be of any real service, we must apply the same reason all round! As an adherent of 
Historic Christianity, that writer has all along been a Believer in what he did not know to 
be facts; and a believer just because he did not know; and now he finds it too late, 
perhaps, to correct his early belief by means of later knowledge! All I ask is that people 
shall no longer believe because they do not know. No matter what they may call 
themselves—they are traitors to the Truth who will not face the facts or examine for 
themselves, but will go on repeating ignorantly, or in pious pigheadedness, the orthodox 
assumptions, and applying the hypotheses of accommodation to the Christian documents. 
You might as well expect to reach the next world by going round and round this, as to 
think of making ends meet by unifying the Gnostic religion with Historic Christianity. 
Phenomenal Spiritualists who go on philandering with the fallacies of the Christian faith, 
and want to make out that it is identical with Modern Spiritualism, have at last to face the 
great, indubitable fact that Historic Christianity was established as a non-Spiritualist and 
an anti-Spiritualistic religion! Its primary fact, its initial point of departure, its first bit of 
foothold for a new departure, was the acknowledgment of the physical resurrection of the 
dead Historic Christ. It is useless to try to wriggle out of that. The reappearance of the 
Corpus Christi is the fundamental fact of the Faith! The strings are pulled so that the 
Marionette Messiah may be forced to exclaim that he is not a bodiless ghost; not a 
boneless phantom; not a spirit anyway; and he offers the proof palpable that he is none of 
your Spiritualistic or Gnostic Christs, or the spirit of anybody! Moreover, this is the 
veritable dead body that is missing from the tomb! And still further, the passage in Luke 
has been altered from Marcion's "Gospel of the Lord" on purpose to substitute the 
Corporeal Christ of Historic Christianity for the Spiritual representation of the Gnostics. 
In Marcion's version the word phantasma is used, and this has not only been omitted by 
Luke; the phantom is made to protest very emphatically that he is not in anywise 
phantasmal, but is a being of flesh and blood even as they are; and after demonstrating 
the fact, clinches it by asking if they have got anything there for him to eat! The entire 
fabric of the new faith rested upon the reality of a physical resurrection; and it is too late 
now to shift the basis of the edifice by trying to lift it bodily, like the city of Chicago, on 
to the higher and surer ground of Spiritualism, so as to find a firmer basis for it and all its 
weight of errors! We can trace the very bifurcation and fresh starting-point of the new 
faith in the account given of the resurrection in the Canonical Gospels. They proclaimed 
the resurrection of the dead in Jesus and through him only! The historic Jesus who alone 
had power to open the gateways of the grave, and who had personally left with Peter the 
keys that lock up heaven and open hell. There was nothing to constitute a new faith in a 
spiritual resurrection. That was already the common property of the Gnostics, whether 
called Pagans or Christians. That was according to the natural fact, and here only was the 
miracle, in the dead body rising again to prove the presence and the power of the divinity. 
Such is the religious foundation, for which the Christians are responsible Trustees! 
As a Spiritualist, then, I assert that the new Christian dispensation was founded upon the 
death and burial of the ancient spiritualism; or upon the gagging of it and getting it 
underground dead or alive! And the tomb out of which a corporeal Christ was believed to 
have emerged as the Saviour of the World, and brought immortality to light by a physical 



resurrection from the dead, has been the burial-place of genuine Spiritualism for 1800 
years. For this reason the defenders of the faith were bound to make war upon the facts of 
phenomenal spiritualism, and persecute and put the psychical demonstrators to death, 
which they did with a consuming fury so long as they were allowed. 
The terrible craze that was caused by this perversion of the ancient wisdom has sown the 
germs of insanity broadcast, and half-filled the world with pious lunatics for whom it 
offers no cure, and who are still told to look forward for an asylum in the world to come. 
But such pernicious teaching will make people as insane for another life as for this! Here, 
or hereafter, falsehood must be fraudulent, though it may be found out too late! What of 
the myriads of suffering souls who have been forced to wear the blinkers of ignorance all 
through this life for fear they should learn to see for themselves—who were drugged and 
deceived from birth till death with the nostrums of a false deluding faith. What of them 
when they awake from their stupor in death to find out that they have been foully, cruelly 
hocussed with a creed that was an illusion for this life and a delusion for the next. 
Delusion that is perfectly complete 
For those who die to find out the deceit! 

If the teachers of the fleshly cult could but see how their fallacies dissolve in death—how 
the false ideal set up in this life dislimns and fades as the terrible light of reality whitens 
in the next; if they could but see that mournful multitude of the helplessly deceived who 
staked their all upon the truth of what they had been taught and find they have lost 
because the teaching was false! If you could see them wander up and down on the other 
side of the dark river and wring their hands over their blighted hopes and broken hearts; 
hear the pitiful wailings for the Christ that is no more objective there than he was here— 
for the visionary glory that they may not grasp, the distant rainbows, never reached, that 
weep themselves away in tears— for the lifeboat gone to wreck on the wrong shore 
because of the false beacon-lights. If you could only dream how these poor souls desire to 
have the deception made known on this side of life— how they want to send some word of 
warning to their friends— how they will almost hiss at me through the mouths of mediums 
whenever they have the chance, as if their fierce feelings had turned into tongues of 
flame, praying for us to work on faster and cry louder against the established lie, for time 
is getting short and the helpers are few, and the atmosphere around each live soul is so 
deathly dense with indifference! This would be unbearable but for those calm other 
voices of the Gnostics who in this life walked our world lords of themselves with "inward 
glory crowned," and who lived on after the Gnosis was suppressed and the ancient 
oracles made dumb— who live on yet, and are working with us still— who fill and inflate us 
at times with their influence, as if each single soul of us were a hundred thousand ("cent 
mille, " as his men used to call Napoleon). It is they who are joining hands with us to-day 
to bridge over that dark gulf betwixt two worlds which the historic and fleshly faith first 
excavated, and has been deepening and widening now for eighteen centuries. 
This is the Resurrection Day of the pre-Christian Gnosticism, as shown by the recent 
revival of Spiritualism, by the restoration of the Tree of Knowledge, by the elevation of 
Womankind, instead of the Fall of man; and we are living witnesses of the fact that 
"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, 
The eternal years of God are hers; 
But Error, wounded, writhes with pain, 
And dies among his worshippers!" 



NOTE. 

I have been asked whether I am able to explain by means of the Egyptian Mythos, the 
two diverse statements in the Gospel according to Luke and the Book of Acts concerning 
the ascension of Jesus into Heaven. In Luke the risen Christ is "carried up into Heaven" 



on the third day following the crucifixion. In the Acts he is not "taken up" into Heaven 
until the fortieth day, or after forty days! Such serious discrepancies as these are forever 
irreconcilable as history, but they are found to contain the very facts that reconstitute the 
Mythos. 

The resurrection of Osiris at the Autumn equinox was lunar; at the vernal equinox it was 
solar. After he was betrayed to his death, when the sun was in the sign of Scorpio, he rose 
again on the third day as Lord of Light in the moon, or as Horus, the child of the mothermoon. 
The solar resurrection was at the vernal equinox when the sun entered the first of 
the upper signs and Orion rose. This time it was in the character of the second Horus, the 
adult of 30 years; and this second resurrection followed the forty days of mourning for 
the suffering God which were celebrated in the Mysteries, and survive in a Christianized 
form as our Lent. And just as the myth of the double Horus in the two characters of the 
child of 12 years, and the adult Horus of 30 years, has been continued in the Gospels to 
furnish the two phases in the life of Jesus, so have the two different resurrections with 
their correct dates been applied to the Christ made historical. 

Thus interpreted by means of the Mythos these two versions of one alleged fact tend to 
corroborate my explanation already made that the two different dates for the crucifixion 
given in the otherwise irreconcilable accounts belong to the luni-solar reckoning in the 
same luni-solar myth. In Egyptian the signs of a half-moon and fourteen days are 
identical; and in the dark half of the moon Osiris was torn into fourteen parts. Therefore 
the 14th of the lunar month was the day of full moon. Whereas in the soli-lunar month of 
thirty days the 15th was the middle of the month. Now the crucifixion or the crossing at 
Easter was and still is determined by the day of full moon. This will be on the 14th of the 
month of twenty-eight days in the reckoning by the moon only, but on the 15th of the 
month according to the soli-lunar reckoning. The 14th of the month would be the lunar 
reckoning of Anup = John, and the 15th that of Taht-Mati = Mathew in the two forms of 
the Egyptian Mythos. Both reckonings were extant in two different cults and both were 
separately continued by the Eastern and Western Churches for the one day of the 
crucifixion. Both cannot be historically correct, but they are both astronomically true. 
Both could be made to meet at a given point in the total combination which was 
determined by the conjunction of the sun and moon at the equinox as the day of full 
moon. But the two different dates for the mid-month remained, and these are represented 
by the traditions of two different dates for the crucifixion. Both the lunar and the solar 
dates could be utilised by the Mythos, in which there were two crucifixions and two 
resurrections, though these will bear witness for the single fact of the historical 
crucifixion. As we have seen, the two ascensions of Osiris on the third day and at the end 
of forty days, have been preserved, and are repeated as historical transactions. Two 
different Crosses were also contained in the Christian Iconography as the cross of 
Autumn and of Easter; and although we may not be able to show two crucifixions in the 
Canonical Gospels, nevertheless the total matter of the Mythos is there. When Jesus was 
led up into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and to suffer during forty days, we 
have the parallel to the struggle between Osiris and Sut, which was celebrated during the 
forty days of mourning in the mysteries. Moreover, there were two days of death or 
crucifixion kept in Rome until the present century, when the dead Christ used to be laid 
out and exhibited on the Thursday before Good Friday; and two days of resurrection were 
also celebrated in the two Sabbaths on Saturday and Sunday. As the Apostolic 
Constitutions show, both of these days were continued for the two weekly holidays of the 
Christians, Saturday being the day of rising again on the 7th day of the week in the lunar 
cult; Sunday, the Sabbath of the 8th day, according to the solar resurrection. Such are the 
fundamental facts; and, to my thinking, they are of sufficient force to cleave the 
Canonical history right in two, each half being then claimed by the Mythos. Here, as 
elsewhere, the Mythos does explain the fact, but only by abolishing the history. From 



beginning to end the ascertainable facts are astronomical, and interpretable solely by 
means of the Gnostic explanation of the Egyptian Mythos, which always denied, because 
it disproved, the alleged human history. 

The same correspondent desires to know whether I would exclude the Bible from our 
children's schools. Most certainly. I would have the Bible-basis superseded for all future 
teaching as unscientific, immoral, and false to the facts in nature. The mass of people 
who are Bible-taught never get free from the erroneous impressions stamped on their 
minds in their infancy, so that their manhood or womanhood can have no intellectual 
fulfilment, and millions of them only attain mentally to a sort of second childhood. 



THE HEBREW AND OTHER CREATIONS FUNDAMENTALLY EXPLAINED 

"If you would correct my false view of facts, " says Emerson, "hold up to me the same 
facts in the true order of thought. " 

That is the process attempted in these lectures of mine; and the true order and sequence of 
the facts can only be ascertained by delving down to the foundations in the physical 
genesis; can only be stated by means of the evolutionary method; can only be proved by 
the Wisdom of Egypt. I claim that on each line of research my interpretation is derived 
from the facts themselves, and is not arbitrarily imposed upon them, or read into them by 
my own theoretic speculation. I do but flesh the skeleton of facts. 
It is not the ancient legends that tell us lies! The men who created them did not deal 
falsely with us by nature. All the falsity lies in their having been falsified through 
ignorantly mistaking mythology for divine revelation and allegory for historic truth. 
Geology was not taught among the mysteries of ancient knowledge, floating fragments of 
which have drifted down to us in the Book of Genesis. The Christian world assumed that 
it was—or, at least, some sort of globe-making— and therefore it was found to be entirely 
opposed to scientific geology. 

Mythology never did inculcate the historic fall of man. Theologists have ignorantly 
supposed that it did, and as a result they were bitterly opposed to the ascent of man, made 
known by means of evolution! 

Such doctrines as the Fall of Man, the failure of God, and all that bankrupt business in the 
commencement of creation, the consequent genesis of evil and original sin, the depravity 
of matter, the filthy nature of the flesh have no other basis or beginning than in the 
perversion of ancient typology, and the literalisation of mythology. 
According to the Hebrew Genesis the first man was born without a mother or a female of 
any kind. If that be fact according to revelation, it cannot be according to nature! But 
there is nothing gained by calling it "Revelation." By doing so "Revelation" has come to 
be a name applied to anything which we may not, for the time being, understand. 
"Revelation" has come to mean a series of confounding lies, warranted by God to be true! 
By making this a revelation direct from deity you destroy the character of the divine 
intelligence, which did not know the facts, processes, or order, of its own works; or if it 
did it must have palmed off a lying version on the medium of communication to the 
world as a divine revelation made to man. 

But Adam never denoted a first man who was produced without a mother, nor Eve a first 
woman formed from an actual rib of Adam. That is but the literalisation of a symbolical 
mode of representation, the key to which has been long mislaid. 
Speaking of the matter found in the Pentateuch, Philo, the learned Jew, told his 
countrymen the truth when he said: "The literal statement is a fabulous one, and it is in 
the mythical we shall find the true. " On the other hand, he asserts of the myths found in 
the Hebrew form: "These things are not mere fabulous inventions, in which the race of 
poets and sophists delight, but are types shadowing forth an allegorical truth according to 
some mystical explanation;" not a history. The literal version is the false; and it is in the 
mythical that we shall find the true, but only when it is truly interpreted. Mythology is not 
to be understood by literalisation, even though the Christian creed has been founded on 
that fatal method! It is not to be made real by modern rationalizing, though that is the 
basis of Unitarianism; nor is it to be utilized by each one furnishing their own system of 
Hermeneutical interpretation. Mythology is an ancient system of knowledge, with its own 
mode of expression, which enshrined the science of the past in what looks to us at times 
like foolish and unmeaning fables. It is entirely useless to speculate on such a subject, or 



try to read one's own interpretation into the myths, with no clue whatever to their 
primordial meaning. Anybody can make an allegory go on all-fours, and read some sort 
of history into a myth. And, of course, he that hides can find; if you put your own 
meaning into what you read, you can discover it there. You may say it is so; any one can 
say, and possibly get a few others to hearken and believe, but no amount of mere 
assertion will establish the truth by means of a false interpretation of the fable. Some 
persons will tell us that if the "Fall of Man" be not a fact once and for all, better still, it is 
true for ever, because men and women are always falling; therefore the allegory is over 
true, and, in point of fact, a divine revelation. I have heard preachers resolve the 
nocturnal wrestling-match between Jacob and the angel into an exquisite allegory, made 
to run on all-fours for very simple people to ride on, an allegory full of light and leading, 
and lovely in its moral and spiritual significance, for sorely tempted men. The night of 
the struggle is made internal. The angel is transformed into the devil, and we have the 
wrestle of the soul with the tempter, and a man on his knees all night in prayer. It is the 
conflict of Christian and Apollyon humanized, and fought out in a bedroom, in place of 
the dark valley of the shadow of death. It is in this wise that such stories are to be saved 
from absurdity, orthodoxy is to regain its lost supremacy, and science and religion are to 
be reconciled for ever. But there is no truth in it all. The history was not human at first, 
and this subjective mode of treatment does but reface it with another sort of falsehood. If 
we would ascertain what these old stories originally meant we must go to mythology. In 
this case the Hottentots can enlighten us. They have a myth or fable of Tsuni-Goam and 
Gaunab, the twins, who personate the presence of light and darkness, the powers of good 
and evil. These two contend in mortal conflict night after night, the good one getting the 
better of the bad one by degrees, and growing stronger with every battle fought. At last 
Tsuni-Goam grew mighty enough to give his enemy a blow at the back of his ear, which 
put an end to Gaunab. But just as he was expiring and falling back into his own abyss of 
darkness, Gaunab gave his opponent a blow in the hollow of his leg, that made him go 
limping for life. In consequence he was called "Tsuni-Goam," the meaning of which 
name is "wounded knee." The struggle was that of light and darkness in the orb of the 
moon, or the sun of night fighting his way through the valley of the shadow of death in 
the underworld, during the winter, when his movement was slower; and he was 
represented as being lame in one knee, or maimed in his lower member. A wounded knee 
with a knife thrust through it is the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for being overcome. 
Hence, although he conquers the powers of darkness, Tsuni-Goam is said to have been 
wounded in one knee. The myth is found in many lands, and is identical with that of 
Jacob wrestling all night with the power called an angel, who maimed him in the hollow 
of his thigh, and made him a form of the "wounded knee." 
Also, it is worse than useless, because misleading, to begin by applying a modern 
mystical system of subjective interpretation to the fragments of ancient wisdom found in 
the Hebrew Book of Genesis, after the manner of Swedenborg. According to him the 
account of the Creation in Genesis is not a real history, but a narrative written in the style 
of the Ancient Churches, signifying spiritual and divine things. 
The general subject of the first chapter is not the generation, but the new creation; the 
genesis becomes the re-genesis; the perverted mythos is an intentional spiritual allegory; 
the six days are six states in the re-creation of man; the seventh day represents the 
celestial man, and he is the garden of Eden, and also the most ancient Church! Adam's 
nakedness denotes the purity of the internal man, or the state of innocence of the celestial 
Church! Eve also signifies the Church. Cain is the name of those who falsified the 
doctrine of the most ancient Church. The serpent going on its belly denotes the groveling 
of the sensual principle seeking after corporeal things. The flood or deluge was a total 
immersion of mankind in evil and falsehood! Everything in the Word relates to the 
heavenly and spiritual, and is falsified if transferred to a lower level. But spiritual 



significations are not primary! The natural or physical must come first, because they were 
first; the eschatological is last. Man was no more re -made than he was made on the sixth 
day. Swedenborg knows or acknowledges nothing of the origin in natural phenomena; 
nothing of the true mythical mode of representation; nothing of an astronomical basis for 
the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge, the serpent, or the primal pair, whose figures 
are pourtrayed and whose story can still be read as it was first written in the stars of 
heaven! The imagery and types of mythology can, of course, be used as a mode of 
expression for later ideas, and for moral or spiritual significations—just as we continue to 
say the moon rises, or the sun sets, after we know better; but, from the mundane 
standpoint, the natural, the physical, the external alone were primal. Hence primitive 
Mythology is no more moral or immoral than it is obscene, senseless, or insane, simply 
because the phenomena were not human. Before the Egyptian hieroglyphics were 
understood Swedenborg undertook to vouch for the fact that they represented spiritual 
ideas by means of natural objects, according to his own doctrine of correspondences; 
which is no more true than his interpretation of the Hebrew Genesis. This can be proved. 
The hieroglyphics began as direct object-pictures, which became symbolical in a later 
phase. The three Water-Signs of the Zodiac do not represent a spiritual experience in this 
"Vale of Tears," but the three months' Inundation which is annual in the Valley of the 
Nile. The fact is that we cannot translate the thought of primitive or pre-historic man 
without first learning the language in which is was expressed. The wisdom, or gnosis, so 
carefully hidden and jealously guarded in the past, is not to be recovered with any 
certitude by clairvoyant insight or intuitional memory, whosoever sets up the claim! You 
may have the vision to see the hidden treasures lying buried at the bottom of the ocean, 
but you will not be able to bring it back to men by merely dredging for it in your dreams. 
There were Illuminati in the mysteries of old, but they did not trust to the intuitional 
faculty for that information, which took them seven or ten years to acquire. They were no 
mere se\f-illuminati\ They knew that intuition could not take the place of research, and 
were careful to communicate all the exact knowledge they possessed to those whom they 
instructed. "Add to your faith knowledge, " is the counsel of Paul. In vain we read our own 
thought into the primitive types of expression, and then say the ancients meant that! 
Subtilised interpretation will not read the riddle to the root. Nor did such things originate 
in riddles or intentional enigmas. You may believe me when I affirm, and you can prove 
it for yourselves, that mythology was a primitive method of teaching natural facts, and 
not an esoteric mode of misinterpreting them! 

What we need to know is the primary meaning of the myth-makers; and this can only be 
recovered by collecting and comparing all the extant versions of the original mythos. 
There is no beginning with the mystical or metaphysical in the past before we have 
mastered the mythical; that can only lead to a maze, or to being lost in a mist of 
mystification, as soon as we are out of the wood of literalisation! 

Cardinal Baronius has said that the intention of Holy Scripture is to teach us how to go to 
heaven, and not how the heavens go! But the earliest Scripture did teach how the heavens 
go, and it became sacred because it was celestial. 

The first creation of heaven and earth was but the division into upper and lower, by 
whatsoever means expressed, answering to the discreting of light from darkness. This 
was also rendered by the dividing of an Egg or Calabash, and by the cutting of the 
heaven, the Cow of Heaven, or the Heifer of the Morning and Evening Star, in two. It 
was neither earth-making nor heaven-making in any cosmical sense—nothing more than 
distinguishing the light from the darkness; the vault above from the void below. This is 
illustrated by the creation-legend found on the Assyrian tablets, which commences— "At 
that time the Heaven above had not announced, nor the Earth beneath recorded, a name." 
The word first uttered in heaven related to times and seasons, and the earliest word was 
uttered by the appointed time-keepers! The account of creation given in the second 



chapter of Genesis is that "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth when 
they were created." And the generations of the heaven were astronomical. 
We learn from the cuneiform legends of creation how in the beginning God created the 
heavens:— "Bel prepared the Seven Mansions of the Gods. He fixed the Stars, even the 
Twin Stars, to correspond to them; he ordained the year, appointing the Signs of the 
Zodiac over it. He illuminated the Moon-God that he might watch over the night" 
(Sayce). (This version, however, is comparatively late, because the fatherhood had then 
been founded!) 

Then, as Hermes says in the Divine Pymander, the heaven was seen in seven circles, and 
the gods were visible in the stars with all their signs, and the stars were numbered with 
the gods in them, the gods being seven in number; when the old Genetrix is excluded. 
From the first, our theology, based on the Old Testament records, has never been 
anything else than a dead branch of the ancient mythology; and just when all men, free to 
think, were finding out this fact, Mr. Gladstone came forward and made another effort to 
rehabilitate the old book so generally discredited, and chivalrously led one more forlorn 
hope for a cause that is hopelessly lost. Surely no Christian martyr of an earlier time 
could have made a more pathetic or pitiable appeal to human sympathies than this man of 
intellect—who is so much larger than his creed— holding on to his pious opinion in the 
face of facts the most fatal to his faith. For, with the literal interpretation of the book of 
Genesis, the Fall of Man remains a historic transaction, and the ascent made known by 
evolution is a stupendous delusion. It is a sad sight to see a man like Mr. Gladstone, who 
by his position and powers can attract a world's attention to his words, cheerfully content 
to become a leader in misleading; still fondly believing that the creations in the book of 
Genesis contain a veritable history that could not have been written unless it had been 
divinely inspired; still trying to make out that it is in accordance with geology, and the 
scientific interpretation of nature. In his case the child is not only father to the man, but a 
terrible tyrant over him as well. 

Mr. Gladstone still maintains the opinion that the man who wrote the account of the 
creations in Genesis was "gifted with faculties passing all human experience, or else his 
knowledge was divine." The order of development presented, he says, is first the water 
population; second, the air population; third, the land population of animals; and fourth, 
the land population consummated in man. And Mr. Gladstone says this same four-fold 
order is understood to have been so affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may be 
taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact. The reply of science is a pointblank 
denial. It admits nothing of this kind. It knows better. This is not the order in which 
the various populations made their first appearance on the globe; and it was only by 
classing these populations according to the notion of distinct creations, which were 
produced at the rate of one a day or so, that any such definition or distinction could ever 
have been made. Whatsoever the order of succession, that succession was gradual, with a 
good deal of parallelism and lapping over on various lines of development. In short, the 
account is not geological, is not true, when judged by the earth's record itself! Besides, 
when the ancients placed water before earth, in their series of elements, they had no 
particular thought whether water or earth was first in existence. They were only 
concerned with water being their first recognized necessary and essential element of life. 
And if we were teaching our children without any pretense of revelation or assumption of 
divine knowledge; if we limited ourselves to the natural facts, we should have to point 
out that the water population as a whole did not exist before there was any land 
population. There was no such thing as a completion of creation No. 1, before the 
beginning of creation No. 2. No such thing as creation in that sense at all; neither as the 
act of one day, nor of a million years. We know that many forms of life on land preceded 
various forms which are found in the waters, and that life was proceeding on its special 
lines of variation in several elements at once. Moreover, though man is the crowning outcome 



of the animal world, it is not necessary to assume any sudden or complete ending to 

the animal creation before he could appear,— as if all lines of descent had to converge and 

culminate in him! It is very likely that man was earlier than the horse, and almost certain 

that he was before the dog, as we know that animal. Man had probably put in an 

appearance as head of his line before various other species had reached the last term of 

their series. It is certain there never were four or three definite and successive periods of 

time (and no other) in which three or four distinct populations could have originated. 

That which is wrong as scientific matter-of-fact cannot be made right as trustworthy 

matter of faith; not even by the specious dialectic of Mr. Gladstone or any other nonevolutionist. 

Nor is there any loop-hole of escape in supposing that the day and night of 

each creation were not intended by the compiler of Genesis to mean a day and night of 24 

hours! We are not allowed to wriggle out of that conclusion. The six days might have 

meant vastly indefinite periods (after we had heard of the geological series and 

sequence), but for that fatal Seventh Day which completes the week of seven days. The 

reason why we keep the Sabbath every seventh day is because this was the day of rest for 

the Lord after his six days' hard labour. "And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed 

it, because that in it he rested." This was the accepted origin of keeping holy the seventh 

day every week, and not at the end of aeons of time, or six ages. The plain meaning of the 

compiler is not to be evaded or got away from. The writer of the Hebrew Genesis says 

positively that all things were made and finished in one week, and for that reason we 

celebrate the Sabbath day. Seven days in one week are also shown by the dedication of 

each day to one of the seven planetary gods. And seven days in one week cannot be 

geological periods any more than they can apply to the subjective experience of the soul! 

Mr. Gladstone says the question is "whether natural science in the patient exercise of its 

high calling to examine facts finds that the works of God cry out against what we have 

fondly believed to be his work, and tell another tale." The answer is, they do cry out, and 

give the lie to that authority so foolishly supposed to be divine. The Word of God says 

that the act of Adam brought death into the world. The older record shows, leaf after leaf 

or stratum beneath stratum, that death had been at work tens of millions of years before 

man appeared on the earth. 

In all these orthodox attempts to rationalize mythology, writers and preachers are dealing 

with matters which they have not yet understood, and which never can be understood on 

their plane of thought, or within their narrow limits. In ^sop's fable the wolf overhears 

the nurse threaten to throw the child to him, and he believes her; but, after long waiting 

for the fulfillment of prophecy to bring him his supper, he finds that she did not mean 

what she said. So is it with the myths; they never meant what they said when literally 

interpreted. And the literalisation of mythology is the fountain-head of all our false belief, 

mystification being the secondary source. From my point of view, this is merely slaying 

the slain over again. And yet this literalisation of mythology is continued to be taught as 

God's truth to the men and women of the future in their ignorant and confiding childhood. 

And some eight or ten millions of pounds are annually filched from our national revenues 

for the benefit of a Church and clergy established and legally empowered to make the 

people believe that these falsified fables are a true divine revelation, received direct from 

God; and if they doubt and deny it they will be doomed to suffer atrocious tortures 

through all eternity. Mr. Gladstone says he is persuaded that the belief of Christians and 

Jews concerning the inspiration of the Book is impregnable. He believes the Genesis to 

be a revelation for the Christians, made by God to the Jews, such as presents to the 

rejecter of that belief a problem which demands solution at his hands, and which he has 

not been able to solve. For himself, Mr. Gladstone is so simple and profound a believer in 

revelation, if biblical, and in the inspiration of the Mosaic writer in particular, that he is 

lost in astonishment at the phenomenon it presents to him. He asks, How can these things 

be, and not overcome us with wonder? How came they to be, "not among Akkadians, or 



Assyrians, or Egyptians, who monopolized the stores of human knowledge when this 
wonderful tradition was born, but among the obscure records of a people who, dwelling 
in Palestine for twelve hundred years from their sojourn in the Valley of the Nile, hardly 
had force to stamp even so much as a name on the history of the world at large, and only 
then began to be admitted to the general communion of mankind when their scriptures 
assumed the dress which a Gentile tongue was needed to supply? It is more rational, I 
contend, to say that these astonishing anticipations were a God-given supply than to think 
that this race should have entirely transcended in kind, even more than in degree, all 
known exercise of human faculties." The answer is, that it does not do to begin with 
wonder in matters which demand inquiry and research—the answer is, that this matter of 
the Creations did not originate with the Jewish race at all. Mr. Gladstone's assumption is 
the sheerest fallacy. The wonderful tradition was not born among them! It was wholly 
and far more perfectly pre-extant amongst the Persians, the Akkadians, and Egyptians. 
The Book of Genesis is assigned to a man who was learned in all the wisdom of the 
Egyptians. I cannot answer for the man, but I can for some of the matter. To begin with, 
the legend of Eden is one of those primeval traditions that must have been the common 
property of the undivided human race, carried out into all lands as they dispersed in 
various directions from one centre, which I hold to have been African. As Sharpe, an 
early English Egyptologist, and a translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, asserts correctly- 
"The whole history of the fall of man is of Egyptian origin. The temptation of the woman 
by the serpent, and of man by the woman, the sacred tree of knowledge, the cherubs 
guarding with flaming swords the door of the garden, the warfare declared between the 
woman and the serpent, may all be seen upon the Egyptian sculptured monuments." 
The French Egyptologist, M. Lefebure, who has lately identified Adam with the Egyptian 
Atum, as I had done seven years earlier in my Book of Beginnings, refers to a scene on 
the coffin of Penpii in the Louvre, which is similar to the history of Adam in the 
terrestrial paradise, where a naked and ithyphallique personage called "the Lord of food" 
(Neb-tefa), is standing before a serpent with two legs and two arms, and the reptile is 
offering him a red fruit, or at least a little round object painted red. The same scene is 
again found on the tomb of Rameses VI. And on a statue relatively recent in the Museum 
of Turin it is to Atum = Adam that the serpent, as Tempter, is offering the round object, 
or fruit of the tree. 

The same writer says— "The Tree of life and knowledge was well known in Egypt." 
And "whether the scene of Neb-tefa can be identified with the history of Adam or not, we 
can see that the greater number of the peculiar features of this history existed in Egypt— 
the tree of life and knowledge, the serpent of Paradise, Eve thinking of appropriating 
divinity to herself, and in short Adam himself, are all there." (Trans. S. Bib. Arch, v.9, 
pt.l., p. 180.) 

These and other matters pertaining to the astronomical allegory and the natural genesis of 
mythology were pre-extant in Egypt, and had been carried out over the world untold ages 
before a Palestinian Jew had ever trod the earth. And yet, incredible as it may sound, Mr. 
Gladstone has the reckless confidence to declare that the Hebrew account of creation has 
no Egyptian marks upon it! That would indeed be strange if it had been written by a man 
who was a master of the wisdom of Egypt. 

Mr. Gladstone may have been misled by the Hibbert lecturer, Mr. Renouf, who has said 
(p. 243), "It may be confidently asserted that neither the Hebrews nor Greeks learned any 
of their ideas from Egypt." A statement which reveals a congenital deficiency of the 
comparative faculty. The same may be said of Professor Sayce, when he asserts the "the 
Theology and the Astronomy of Egypt and Babylonia show no vestiges of a common 
source." 

The Creation of the Woman from the Man in the second chapter of Genesis is likewise 
found in the Magical Texts, where it is said of the Seven Spirits— "They bring forth the 



Woman from the Loins of the Man" (Sayce, Hib. Lect. 395). 

This also has an Egyptian mark upon it. Such a creation is alluded to in the Book of the 
Dead, where the speaker says, "I know the mystery of the Woman who was made from 
the Man." Professor Sayce also asserts that there is "no trace in the Book of Genesis" of 
the great struggle between the God of Light and the Dragon of Darkness, who in one 
form are Merodach and Tiamat. The conflict is there, however, but from the original 
Egyptian source. It is represented as the enmity between the Woman and the Serpent, and 
also between her Seed and the Serpent. The Roman Church renders the passage (Gen. iii. 
15) addressed to the Serpent~"She shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise her heel." 
Both versions are Egyptian. Horus is the Son and Seed of Isis. Sometimes he is 
pourtrayed as bruiser of the Apap Serpent's head; at others it is she who conquers. Both 
are combined in the Imagery which the Egyptians set in the Planisphere, where Isis in the 
shape of Virgo bears the Seed in her hands, and bruises the Serpent's head beneath her 
feet. This Seed in one form was sown in Egypt immediately after the Inundation, and in 
this way (as I have shown) the Zodiacal representation reflects the Seasons of Egypt all 
round the year. 

The Serpent itself in the Hebrew Genesis is neither an original nor a true type. Two 
opposite characters have been fused and confused in it for the sake of a false moral. 
Serpent and Dragon were primarily identical as emblems of evil in physical phenomena; 
each was the representative of Darkness, and as such the Deluder of Men. Afterwards the 
Serpent was made a type of Time, of Renewal, and, therefore, of Life; the Dragon- 
Crocodile a zootype of intelligence. Both Crocodile and Serpent were combined in 
Sevekh-Ra. Both were combined in the Polar Dragon; and in the Book of Revelation the 
Dragon remains that old Serpent, considered to be the Deluder of Mankind. Both were 
combined in the Chnubis Serpent-Dragon of the Gnostics, which was a survival of Kneph 
as the Agatho-Demon or Good Serpent of Egypt. The Akkadian type as Ea, is the Good 
Serpent, the Serpent of Life, the God of Wisdom. Now it was the Serpent of Wisdom that 
first offered the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge for the Enlightenment of Mankind; 
whether this be Egyptian, Akkadian, or Gnostic, it is the Good Serpent. And as Guardian 
of the Tree set in Heaven it was the Good Serpent, or intelligent Dragon, as keeper of the 
treasures of Astral knowledge. It was the later Theology, Persian and Hebrew, that gave 
the character of the Evil One to the Serpent of Wisdom, and perverted the original 
meaning, both of the temptation and the Tempter who protected the Tree; which has been 
supplemented by the theology of the Vitriol -throwers who have scarified and blasted the 
face of nature on earth, and defiled and degraded the starry Intelligencers in heaven. 
Professor Sayce's statements are no more correct than Mr. Renouf s, and Mr. Renouf s is 
no more true than Mr. Gladstone's. Further evidence may be found in my "Natural 
Genesis." But no non-Evolutionist can understand or interpret the Past. He is too ready to 
accept the re-beginning, where there can be at most a new point of departure. 
Mr. Gladstone has been too much wrapt up in the One Book! He does not know that the 
story of Genesis is to be found written in the Bible above, and that the Happy Garden, the 
primal pair, the war of the serpent, and the first mother, together with the Tree of 
Knowledge, are all constellated in the stars of heaven, according to Egyptian mythology, 
and are all verifiable on the monuments. When he does learn that such is the fact, he 
cannot claim that the history inscribed upon the starry walls was written by the Jews, or 
copied from the Hebrew record! But let us see whether we cannot discover a few more 
Egyptian marks on the Genesis! 

A Paradise or Garden that is watered without rain by a mist that went up from the earth to 
fall upon it in refreshing dew is certainly suggestive of an Egyptian origin, as that was the 
one way in which Egypt was watered from above. This was not so in the Eden at the head 
of the Persian Gulf. Besides which the Eight Primary Powers or Gods of Egypt were the 
dwellers in Eden or "Am-Smen," the Paradise of the Eight, who comprised the Genetrix 



and her Seven Children. The original Genesis and all the chief Types are identifiably 
Egyptian to begin with. But the Hebrew version was more directly derived from the 
Persian, as the Evil Serpent proves. 

Water was the first element of life recognized by the primitive perception. Water was 
considered to be the mother, or Maternal Source, personified. In Egypt the Mother of Life 
pours out the Water of Life from the Tree of Life! She is the first form of the Celestial 
Waterer. In the mystical sense, Blood is the Water of Life, and therefore the Mother of 
Life. This beginning on earth with and from the water was Egyptian, Babylonian, 
Mexican, Indian, Chinese, Greek, British, Universal. 

It is said upon an Assyrian tablet that "the heaven was made from the waters." So in the 
Egyptian beginning the sky was looked upon as the celestial water. This water was also 
entified in the river Nile, which was called the "Way of the Gods, " when the Nature- 
Powers had been divinised. In that sense, as it were, heaven descended, to be continued 
on earth. From this water of heaven the land in Egypt was visibly deposited, and the earth 
was "compacted out of water and by means of water." When these were discreted there 
was the dry land. Here if anywhere is the primary hint of a cosmical beginning with a fact 
in nature, but not with a theory of nature nor a system of geology. 
The second element of life was Breath, anima or air. In Egyptian, breath or spirit is Nef; 
and this was personated by Kneph, a form of the first god, who is said to be the breath of 
souls, or those who are in the firmament. Nef, for breath and spirit, explains the Hebrew 
Nephesh for soul, as the breath of life. Kneph, the breathing life in the firmament, is also 
the Sailor on the water! In the Hebrew version, Kneph becomes the Spirit moving on the 
face of the waters. In the Egyptian representation he sails the waters in his ark, —just as Ea 
does in the Akkadian version of the myth. The god Kneph is also the spirit that presides 
over the Bau, which had become the Pit-hole, or the Tomb from the Womb of the 
Beginning. The Egyptian Bau is the Hebrew Bohu, or the Void. In both it is a place left 
unpersonified. In the later phase of personification this Bau of Birth becomes the 
Phoenician Baev, called the Consort of Kolpia, the Wind or Spirit. The Bau was also 
personified in the Babylonian goddess Bohu. The Phoenician Baev points back to the 
Egyptian Bab (or Beb) for the hole, cave, well, source, or outrance— the original of all the 
Babs in later language, including Babylon. 

Now, that which is performed by the Elohim en gros in Genesis is done by the Ali, or 
Seven Companions, in Egypt, most of whom can be recognized individually in relation to 
the Seven Elements. As the Hebrew Elohim, they may be dislimned and lose their 
likeness, but they are the same seven powers of eternal nature (as explained by the 
Gnostics or Kabalists). In one of the Egyptian creation-legends—shown by a monument 
which was restored in the time of Shabaka— it is said of the Creator, "A blessing was 
pronounced upon all things in the day when he bid them exist, and before he had yet 
caused gods to be made for Ptah." This, it appears to me, has left another Egyptian mark 
on the first chapter of Genesis in the refrain, "And the Elohim saw that it was good," 
which is uttered seven times over, in accordance with the sevenfold nature of the Elohim; 
and the blessing is pronounced— "And God blessed them!" "And God blessed the seventh 
day! " It would be going to far afield to show all the Egyptian marks in one lecture; but I 
must offer another example. The Hebrew word employed for creating, when the Elohim 
form the heaven and the earth, is "Bara." The essential meaning of the word is to give a 
manifestation in form to material previously without shape. Nothing could so perfectly 
realize it as the potter at work on his clay. And the Egyptian image of a Creator, as the 
Former, is Khepr, who, as the Beetle, formed his little globe with his hands, and who, as 
Khepr-Ptah, is the Potter sitting at his wheel, and shaping the egg of the sun and moon, or 
the vase of matter to contain life—he who was the Former or Creator "in his name of Letthe- 
Earth-be." The Potter, in Hebrew and Phoenician, is the Jatzer; and this word is also 
applied to the Hebrew God as Creator, Jatzariah being Jah the Potter. Thus the Kabalist 



Book of Creation, named the Sepher-Jatzirah, is the Book of Creation as the 
workmanship of the Former or Potter. Anyone who knows anything of the monuments 
will here recognize another Egyptian mark; I may say the Egyptian potter's mark on the 
Hebrew creations. The Creator or Former, as Khepr-Ptah the Potter, is the head of the 
Seven Knemmu, who are his assistants in the work of creation. He is the chief of the Ali 
or Elohim, as the fashioner and builder of the heavens. He is also the father of the 
Egyptian Adam, or Atum, the Red One; just as the Hebrew or Phoenician Elohim are the 
creators of Adam the Red. Jehovah-Elohim, the Lord God of the second chapter of 
Genesis, can be further identified with Ptah, the founder of the earth and former of men. 
Ptah is the father of Atum = Adam, the father of human beings. He is designated the 
father of the fathers, an equivalent to the title of Ialdabaoth, chief of the seven Gnostic 
Elohim. The name of Ptah signifies the Opener from Put to open; and the Hebrew name 
of xyxtp shows that Jah is Puthach = Putha, or Ptah, as the Opener (cf Fuerst, p. 1 166). 
These we may claim for other Egyptian marks. 

But I have now learned that the account of the creations in Genesis is not so directly 
derived from the Egyptian as I had once thought; that is, it was re-written after the time of 
the captivity in Babylon, and the consequent acquaintance with the creation-legends in 
their latest Persian form. This can be shown by a comparison with the Parsee Bundahish 
or Aboriginal Creation—more literally, the Creation of the Beginning. Indeed, we may 
suspect that the first words of the Hebrew Genesis have to do with the title of the 
Bundahish. They are, "B'Rashith Elohim Bara;" and "B'Rashith," when literally 
translated, reads, "in the beginning of," leaving an elipsis, without stating in the 
beginning of what! Now the meaning of the word Bundahish is, the Creation of the 
Beginning. This far more perfect statement seems to have been bungled in adapting it for 
the Hebrew version. 

The first two facts distinguishable in external phenomena by man were those of Darkness 
and Light. The panorama of mythological representation is drawn out from these as its 
opening scene, and the long procession of the Powers of Nature, which became divinities 
at a later stage, starts upon its march through heaven above to cast its shadows on the 
earth below. 

By observing the alternation of Light and Darkness, a primary measure of time was first 
established as the creation of a night and day, marked by the Twin-Star. And "there was 
evening, and there was morning, one day," as the result of this earliest creation of the 
Beginning. In the Persian Bundahish, the deity Ahura-Mazda is the chief of the Seven 
Amchaspands just as the creator Ptah is of the Seven Khnemmu; and the Gnostic 
Ialdabaoth of the Seven Elohim. Here we learn that the God created the world in six 
periods, although not in six days. The first of Ahura-Mazda' s creatures of the world was 
the sky, and his good thought by good procedure produced the light of the world. This is 
identical with the Elohim seeing the light that it was good; and with the blessing 
pronounced on his creations by the Egyptian deity. The light now separated and 
distinguished from darkness in the creation of time is quite distinct from the divine, the 
abstract, or the illimitable and eternal light already existing with Ahura-Mazda; it is the 
evening and morning, one day. 

Darkness and light are personified and represented as being at ceaseless enmity with each 
other in the confusion of Chaos, but they come to an understanding as co-creators, and 
make a covenant, in appointing this primeval period of time. 

And such was the first creation in the Persian series of six. "And of Ahura's creatures of 
the world," it is said, "the first was the sky, the second, water; the third earth; the fourth, 
plants; the fifth, animals; the sixth, mankind." The creation of light in the Hebrew 
Genesis is the creation of the sky in the Persian; and the creation of water in the Persian 
Genesis, becomes the dividing of the waters in the Hebrew version. The time of this 
creation is called the second day. 



The third Persian creation is that of earth, which is the dry land of the Hebrew— "and the 
Elohim called the dry land Earth." 

The fourth Persian creation, or rather creature, is that of plants. This is not a separate 
creation in the Hebrew version; it is thrown into the third creation, that of earth. 
Nevertheless, the third must have included the plants because it includes every herb 
yielding seed and every tree that bears edible fruit. And yet in chapter 2, verse 5, when 
the creations are all completed, and the Elohim had finished the work which they had 
made, we are told that "no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field 
had yet sprung up." Which proves how mixed and muddled, as well as un-original, is the 
Mosaic version. In the fourth Hebrew creation the heavenly bodies become the timekeepers 
for signs and seasons. This is not one of the six Persian creations, which six are 
followed by the "formation of the luminaries." Of these it is said "Ahura-Mazda produced 
illumination between the sky and the earth, the constellation-stars and those not of the 
constellations, then the moon; and afterwards the sun." The fifth Persian creation is that 
of the animals. This creation is limited to the winged fowl, sea animals, and fishes, in the 
Hebrew account, which is considerably mixed. 

Mr. Gladstone asks: "Is there the smallest inconsistency in a statement which places the 
emergence of our land, and its separation from the sea, and the commencement of 
vegetable life, before the final and full concentration of light upon the sun, and its 
reflection on the moon and planets? and as there would be light diffused before there was 
light concentrated, why may not that diffused light have been sufficient for the purposes 
of vegetation?" Certainly, as there was light enough to make day before there was any 
sun or moon, there ought to, and should, have been. In my reply I am not concerned to 
reconcile the literal rendering of the Hebrew Genesis with scientific fact, but I shall have 
to point out on behalf of the mythical original that according to the present interpretation 
the heaven and earth could and did exist before the stars, or the moon and the sun! There 
was no time kept on earth or in heaven until night and day were divided and marked by 
the alternation of light and darkness, or by the Twin Star of Evening and Dawn, therefore 
the heavenly bodies were not made use of, ergo they did not exist in any requisite sense 
oftheMythos. 

Lastly, man is the product of the sixth creation in both renderings. If taken literally, man 
of the sixth Persian creation appears on the scene before the stars or moon or sun, which 
follow the six creations, not as mere light-givers to the earth, but as time-keepers for man. 
And that alone will explain why the stars are said to be in existence before the moon; and 
the moon before the sun! In the Persian writings the invariable order is that of stars, 
moon, and sun! In describing the mythical mount Alborz, the mount Meru of the Persian 
system of the Heavens, it is said that it grew for 200 years up to the star-station; for 200 
more years up to the moon-station; for 200 more years up to the sun-station; for 200 more 
years up to the endless light! That is a mode of building up the heavens in accordance 
with the order of the Celestial timekeepers, and of the Kronian creations. Time was first 
told by the stars, morning and evening, and by the seven which turned round once in the 
circle of a year; next by means of the moon and its monthly renewal; next by means of 
the sun; solar time being last because the most difficult to make out. 
In a papyrus at Turin it is said of Taht, the god of lunar time, in Egypt, "He hath made all 
that the world contains, and hath given it light when all was darkness, and there was as 
yet no sun!" This was figurative, and applies solely to the moon, by which time was kept 
earlier than it could be defined by the sun. It is well known that the lunar year and the 
lunar zodiac, or pathway of the moon, were earlier than the solar zodiac of 12 signs, 
which is too late for the mythical Beginnings. 

In the Babylonian account of creation the moon is produced before the sun. As George 
Smith points out, this is in reverse order to that of the Hebrew Genesis. Evidently, he 
says, the Babylonians considered the moon the principal body, while the book of Genesis 



makes the sun the greater light. "Here is becomes evident," says this Bibliolator, "that 
Genesis is truer to nature than the Chaldean text." The uninspired Babylonians, you see, 
did not know that the moon was the lesser, and the sun the larger light! 
Professor Sayce likewise tells us that "the idea which underlay the religious belief of 
Akkad" was, that "the moon existed before the sun" (Hib. Lect. 165). Neither of these 
Assyriologists appears to have had any notion why this was so represented! 
The Arkadians, the Argives, the Quiches, and other races of men claimed to be Pro- 
Selenes, or those who lived before the time of the moon, not before the existence of that 
luminary! Truer to nature can have no meaning for an account of the creation of light 
prior to the existence of the heavenly bodies—that is, if literally taken. But neither the 
Egyptians, Babylonians, nor Persians were talking about the cosmical creation in the 
modern sense, as has been ignorantly assumed, and foolishly contended for, but about the 
mythical beginnings of the Time-keepers. In these the mapping out of the lunar month 
came before the solar year. Hence the sun-god was called the child of the moon-god Sin, 
in Assyria, and the lunar god, Taht, or Tehuti, is called the father of Osiris, the sun-god, 
in Egypt; the priority being dependent on the earlier observations for the keeping of time. 
So the Mexicans held the planet Venus to have been created before the sun! It was earlier 
than the moon, they said, and properly the first light that appeared in the world. That 
would be as a star of morning and evening which made the first day. Hence we are told 
that the first man, Oannes, came up out of the Red Sea, and landed in Babylonia on the 
"First Day." 

The Great Mother, to whom the planet Venus was dedicated, was represented by the 
Heifer, the pure Heifer, the sacred Heifer, the Golden Calf, as it was called. This being of 
either sex, it supplied a twin type for Venus, as Hathor or Ishtar, the double Star, that was 
male at rising and female at sunset, and therefore the Twin-Stars of the "First Day." 
Any other earlier sense these creations have besides that of time-keeping was merely 
elemental, and relating to the order in which man recognized and represented the natural 
elements. Darkness, with its voice of thunder, was the first! Out of the darkness issued 
the light. These two were the Twins of eternal alternation in external phenomena, found 
in so many forms of the mythos as the two Brothers, who fought each other for the 
Birthright. The next two were moisture and air, or the water of life and the breath of life. 
These four creations, or, as the Bundahish has it, four creatures of Ahura-Mazda, were 
the four elements of darkness and light, water and air. 

In Egypt they were typified by the Jackal of darkness, the Hawk of light, the Ape of 
breath, and the Hippopotamus or Dragon of the waters, which were made those Keepers 
of the four corners who are universal in mythology. They indicate four elements, or four 
seasons, four quarters of the year, or the four-fold heaven by which the circle of the 
whole was divided; and squared as it was in the circle of Yima. 
I have followed out the various creations, or heavens, from beginning to end in the 
"Natural Genesis." At present we must turn once more to the Persian Bundahish where it 
says in Revelation—such being the formula frequently employed on matters of religion, or 
on the periods for the observance of religious duties— "the creatures of the world were 
created by me complete in three hundred and sixty-five days; that is the six periods of the 
festivals which are completed in a year." Here, then, we part company with the six days 
and one week of creation in the Hebrew book of Genesis! We can see that is but a 
condensed summary of an earlier account, which may lead us a little nearer to nature, and 
to those phenomenal facts on which mythology was founded— the Rock on which our 
Biblical Theology will be wrecked. In this version of the creation-legend the six creations 
are completed in one year of 365 days, or rather the year of 365 days has been finally 
completed in six stages, or seasons, or periods of time-keeping! In accordance with this 
sixth creation we learn from the Targum of Palestine that Adam, as the Adamic man, was 
created in the image of the Lord, his maker, with 365 nerves. Here the divine model of 



humanity was the solar god of time, or of the creations perfected at last in a year of 365 
days! which figures are reflected in the 365 nerves. Now we can see how the Persian sixth 
day of celebration of each of the six creations became the six days of creation in the 
Hebrew Genesis, in the process of condensing mythology into cosmical and human 
history; and one year into one week to make it more tangible at a later time! The 
creations include the elements identified, together with the various systems of keeping 
time, which culminated at last in a year of 365 and a quarter days. These systems may be 
roughly sketched as (1) the one day of a light and dark; (2) one turn round to a year; (3) 
the half-years of the solstices; (4) a lunar month of the four quarters; (5) planetary time; 
(6) solar time, or a year of 365 days. 

When it says in the Persian Revelation— "The Creatures of the world were created by me 
in 365 days," it does not mean during that period, any more than it means the six days of 
the Hebrew mis-rendering of the matter. It means that the concluding creation of the six 
different creations culminated in a year of solar time, or 365 days to the year, in the 
image of which Adamic man was formed with 365 nerves. 
The origin of the Sabbath in Genesis is curiously paralleled, or suggested, in the 
Bundahish. We read "on matters of religion," it says in Revelation thus— "The creatures 
(or six creations) were created by me complete in 365 days. That is the six Gahanbars, 
which are completed in a year." And here the matters of religion are explained as being 
the periods for observance of religious duties. That is, the six festivals or Sabbaths were 
instituted to commemorate the six creations which were created complete, or culminated, 
in a year of 365 days. The Persians represented their God as resting during five days after 
each of the six seasons of creation; and they also celebrated a great six days' festival 
annually, beginning on the 1st of March and ending on the sixth day, as the greatest 
holiday, because in this, the sixth season (in place of the sixth day in the Hebrew 
Genesis) Ahura-Mazda had created the most superior things. Thus the six creations in the 
Hebrew version have been visibly condensed into six periods of time, and there is but one 
period for religious observance on the seventh day! And whereas the Persians, or Parsees, 
hold their six festivals and periods of rest in one whole year, we have fifty-two Sabbaths, 
which shows the latest rendering, as well as the development of the same mythos. The 
Hebrew Elohim rested on the seventh day, whereas the Persian Ahura-Mazda rested for 
five days at a time after each of the six creations. 

Further, the six seasons or periods of creation had been reduced from the earlier 
Babylonian version, in which the seventh day was not a Sabbath, but the period in which 
the Animals and Man were created. 

We are also told in the Bundahish— "It says in Revelation that before the coming of the 
Destroyer vegetation had no thorns upon it or bark about it; and afterwards, when the 
Destroyer came, it was created with bark, and things grew thorny! " And in the Avesta, an 
older scripture, this destroyer, the evil opponent, is a serpent— as it is in the book of 
Genesis. 

It is too late now to advance the claim, or assume that the Persians, the Babylonians, and 
the Egyptians borrowed their versions from that given by the inspired writer of the 
Hebrew Pentateuch. And these facts, I submit, furnish sufficient evidence that the Book 
of Genesis does not contain an original revelation made by God to the Jews; in short, it 
does not contain any revelation at all. We are compelled to seek elsewhere before we can 
really understand what it does contain! The Six Creations, Creative Acts, or Periods are 
Persian; but the Legends in Genesis have been derived from more than one source. 
Of late years a mighty fuss has been made about the fact that two different systems, 
known as the Elohistic and Jahvistic, have been imperfectly blended and utilized in the 
Hebrew version of the Genesis, but with no application of the comparative process to the 
various systems of creations, according to mythology, and with no clue whatever to the 
natural phenomena in which the mythology was founded, or to the gnosis by which the 



myths were anciently interpreted. 

According to the Persian reckoning, the human creature was formed as the sixth creation, 
or, as the Hebrew version has it, on the sixth day; whereas in the version of the Seventy 
man was created on the eighth day. Now, if we look closely at the first chapter of 
Genesis, we shall find both these reckonings combined, but not blended. Although there 
are no more than six days of creation mentioned in the Hebrew Genesis, there are eight 
distinct acts of creation or utterances of the Word. These are enumerated as follows:— 

(1) The Elohim said— "Let there be light." 

(2) The Elohim said— "Let there be a firmament." 

(3) The Elohim said— "Let the waters be gathered together," 
* * * and— "let the dry land appear." 

(4) The Elohim said— "Let the earth put forth grass." 

(5) The Elohim said— "Let there be light in the firmament." 

(6) The Elohim said— "Let the waters bring forth." 

(7) The Elohim said— "Let the earth bring forth." 

(8) The Elohim said— "Let us make man in our image." 

The Bundahish has six creations only. The eight are Egypto-Gnostic, in keeping with the 
Ogdoad of primary powers. According to the Gnostics, who had preserved the only true 
knowledge of these mythical matters, man, as the eighth creation, belongs to the mystery 
of the Ogdoad. Irenaeus tells us how the Gnostics maintained that man was formed on the 
eighth day of creation: "Sometimes they say he was made on the sixth, and at others on 
the eighth day." (B. 1, C. 18, 2) 

These two creations of man on the sixth day and on the eighth were those of the Adamic 
or fleshly man and of the spiritual man, who were known to Paul and the Gnostics as the 
first and second Adam, the man of earth and the man from heaven. Irenaeus also says they 
insisted that Moses began with the Ogdoad of the Seven Powers and their Mother, who is 
called Sophia (the old Kefa of Egypt, who is the "Living Word" at Ombos). Thus we find 
the two systems are run into each other, and left without the means of distinguishing the 
one from the other, or of knowing how they had either of them originated. So that, 
instead of a revelation of the beginning in the Hebrew Genesis, we have to go far beyond 
it to find any beginning whatever. 

So it is with the Fall. Here, as before, the Genesis does not begin at the beginning. There 
was an earlier Fall than that of the Primal Pair. In this, the number of those who failed 
and fell was seven. We meet with these Seven in Egypt— (Eight with the Mother)— where 
they are called the "Children of Inertness," who were cast out from "Am-Smen," the 
Paradise of the Eight; also, in a Babylonian legend of creation, as the Seven Brethren, 
who were Seven Kings; like the Seven Kings in the Book of Revelation; and the Seven 
Non-Sentient Powers, who became the Seven Rebel Angels that made war in Heaven. 
The Seven Kronidae, described as the Seven Watchers, who, in the beginning, were 
formed in the interior of heaven. The heaven, like a vault, they extended or hollowed out; 
that which was not visible they raised, and that which had no exit they opened; their work 
of creation being exactly identical with that of the Elohim in the Book of Genesis. These 
are the Seven elemental powers of space, who were continued as Seven timekeepers. It is 
said of them, "In watching was their office, but among the stars of heaven their watch 
they kept not," and their failure was the Fall. In the Book of Enoch the same Seven 
watchers in heaven are stars which transgressed the commandment of God before their 
time arrived, for they came not in their proper season, therefore was he offended with 
them, and bound them until the period of the consummation of their crimes, at the end of 
the secret, or great year of the world— i.e., the Period of Precession, when there was to be 
the restoration and re-beginning. The Seven deposed constellations are seen by Enoch, 



looking like Seven great blazing mountains overthrown—the Seven mountains in 
Revelation, on which the Scarlet Lady sits. 

The Book of Genesis tells us nothing about the nature of the Elohim, erroneously 
rendered God, who are the creators of the Hebrew beginning, and who are themselves 
pre-extant and seated when the theatre opens and the curtain ascends. It says that in the 
beginning the Elohim created the heaven and the earth. In thousands of books the Elohim 
have been discussed, but with no application of the comparative process to this and the 
earlier mythologies, and therefore with no conclusive result. Our bibliolators were too 
conceited in their insular ignorance to think there was any thing worth knowing outside 
of their own Books. Foolishly fancying they had gotten a revelation all to themselves, a 
supernatural version of the cosmical Genesis, they did not care to seek for, did not dream 
of, a natural or scientific Genesis, and could not make out the mythical; consequently 
they have never known what it was they were called upon to worship in the name of God. 
In his paper on the Evolution of Theology, Professor Huxley assumes that the Elohim of 
Genesis originated as the ghosts of ancestors, in doing which he no more plumbs to the 
bottom than does Mr. Gladstone. The Elohim are Seven in number, whether as nature 
powers, gods of constellations, or planetary gods. Whereas the human ghosts are not, and 
never were, a septenary, although they may be, and have been, confused with the typical 
seven as the Pitris and Patriarchs, Manus and Fathers of earlier times. The Gnostics, 
however, and the Jewish Kabalah preserve an account of the Elohim of Genesis by which 
we are able to identify them with other forms of the seven primordial powers. They are 
the children of the ancient Mother called Sophia. Their names are Ialdabaoth, Jehovah (or 
Iao), Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloeus, Oreus and Astanphaeus. Ialdabaoth signifies the Lord God 
of the fathers; that is the fathers who preceded the Father; and thus the Seven are identical 
with the Seven Pitris or Fathers in India. (Irenasus B. 1, 30, 5.) Moreover, the Hebrew 
Elohim were pre-extant by name and nature as Phoenician divinities or powers. 
Sanchoniathon mentions them by name, and describes them as the Auxiliaries of Kronus 
or Time. In this phase, then, the Elohim are timekeepers in heaven! In the Phoenician 
Mythology the Elohim are the Seven sons of Sydik, identical with the Seven Kabiri, who 
in Egypt are the Seven sons of Ptah, and the Seven spirits of Ra in the Book of the Dead; 
in Britain, with the Seven Companions of Arthur in the Ark; in Polynesia, with the Seven 
dwarf sons of Pinga; in America, with the Seven Hohgates; in India, with the Seven 
Rishis; in Persia, with the Seven Amchaspands; in Assyria, with the Seven Lumazi. 
They had one common genesis in phenomena, as I have traced them by number, by 
nature, and by name; and also one common Kamite origin. They are always seven in 
number as a companionship or brotherhood, who Kab, that is turn round together, whence 
the 'Kab-ari.' The Egyptian Ali or Ari, gives us the root meaning; the Ari are the 
companions, guardians and watchers, who turn round together. Hence the Aluheim or 
Elohim. They are also the Hi or gods, in Assyrian, who were seven in number! Eight with 
the Mother in the beginning, or the Manifestor in the end. In their primordial phase they 
were seven elementary powers, warring in chaos, lawless and timeless. They were first 
born of the Mother in space; and then the Seven Companions passed into the sphere of 
time, as auxiliaries of Kronus, or Sons of the Male Parent. As Damascius says, in his 
"Primitive Principles," the Magi consider that space and time were the source of all; and 
from being powers of the air, the gods were promoted to become timekeepers for man. 
Seven constellations were assigned to them, and so they could be called the auxiliaries of 
Kronus, when time was established. As the seven turned round in the ark of the sphere 
they were designated the Seven Sailors, Companions, Rishis, or Elohim. The first "Seven 
Stars" are not planetary. They are the leading stars of seven constellations, which turned 
round with the Great Bear in describing the circle of a year. These the Assyrians called 
the seven Lumazi, or leaders of the flocks of stars, designated sheep. On the Hebrew line 
of descent or development, these Elohim are identified for us by the Kabalists and 



Gnostics, who retained the hidden wisdom or gnosis, the clue of which is absolutely 
essential to any proper understanding of mythology or theology. The creation of the 
Elohim as auxiliaries of Kronus was not world-making at all in our sense. The mythmakers 
were not geologists, and did not pretend to be. The chaos which preceded 
Creation was simply that of timelessness, and of the unintellectual and non-sentient 
Nature-Powers. Creation proper began with the first means of measuring and recording a 
cycle of time. Thus the primary creation in the Genesis, as in the Bundahish, is the 
creation of time, in which the morning and evening measured one day. 
But the Seven Cronies, as we may now call them, were found to be telling time somewhat 
vaguely by the year, in accordance with the annual revolution of the starry sphere; and, 
being found inexact and unfaithful to their trust, they were dispossessed and superseded— 
or, as it was fabled, they fell from heaven. The Seven were then succeeded by a Polar 
Pair and a Lunar Trinity of Time-keepers. For example, it has been observed that there 
was a fixed centre, which was a pivot to the Starry Vast all turning round. Here there 
were two constellations with seven stars in each. We call them the Two Bears. But the 
seven stars of the Lesser Bear were once considered to be the seven heads of the Polar 
Dragon, which we meet with— as the beast with seven heads—in the Akkadian Hymns and 
in the Book of Revelation. The mythical dragon originated in the crocodile, which is the 
Dragon of Egypt. Plutarch tells us the Egyptians said the crocodile was the sole animal 
living in water which has his eyesight covered over with a film, so thin that he can see 
without himself being seen by others— "in which he agrees with the first god." Now, in 
one particular cult, the Sut-Typhonian, the first god was Sevekh, who wears the 
crocodile's head, as well as the serpent, and who is the Dragon, or whose constellation 
was the Dragon. 

The name of Sevekh signifies the sevenfold; hence the seven heads of the Dragon, the 
Dragon who is of the seven and "is himself also an eighth," as we are told in Revelation. 
In him the Seven Powers were unified, as they were in Ea, Iao-Chnubis, and various other 
of the chief gods who summed up the earlier powers in the supreme one, when unity was 
attained at last. For it is certain that no one god was ever made known to man by 
primitive revelation. The only starting-point was in external phenomena, which assuredly 
manifested no oneness in personality. The group of Totemic brotherhood preceded the 
fatherhood, and finally the fatherhood superseded the Totemic group in heaven, as it was 
on earth. One form of this god was Sut-Nub, and Nub means the golden. Thus the reign 
of Sut was that age of gold afterwards assigned to Saturn by the Greeks. In Egypt the 
Great Bear was the constellation of Typhon, or Kepha, the old genetrix, called the Mother 
of the Revolutions; and the Dragon with seven heads was assigned to her son Sevekh- 
Kronus, or Saturn, called the Dragon of Life. That is, the typical dragon or serpent with 
seven heads was female at first, and then the type was continued as male in her son 
Sevekh, the Sevenfold Serpent, in Ea the Sevenfold, in Num-Ra, in the Seven-headed 
Serpent, Iao-Chnubis, and others. We find these two in the book of Revelation. One is the 
Scarlet Lady, the mother of mystery, the great harlot, who sat on a scarlet-coloured beast 
with seven heads, which is the Red Dragon of the Pole. She held in her hand the unclean 
things of her fornication. That means the emblems of the male and female, imaged by the 
Egyptians at the Polar centre, the very uterus of creation as was indicated by the Thigh 
constellation, called the Khepsh of Typhon, the old dragon, in the northern birthplace of 
Time in heaven. The two revolved about the pole of heaven, or the Tree, as it was called, 
which was figured at the centre of the starry motion. In the book of Enoch these two 
constellations are identified as Leviathan and Behemoth = Bekhmut, or the Dragon and 
Hippopotamus = Great Bear, and they are the primal pair that was first created in the 
garden of Eden. So that the Egyptian first mother, Kefa, whose name signifies mystery, 
was the original of the Hebrew Chavah, our Eve; and therefore Adam is one with Sevekh, 
the sevenfold one, the solar dragon, in whom the powers of light and darkness were 



combined, and the sevenfold nature was shown in seven rays worn by the Gnostic Iao- 
Chnubis, god of the number seven, who is Sevekh by name and a form of the first father 
as head of the seven. Another bit of evidence here may be adduced from the Rabbinical 
legends relating to Adam's first wife. Her name was Lilith, and Lilith = Rerit, is that 
Egyptian goddess whose constellation was the Great Bear. Thus Adam and Eve are 
identified at last with the Greater and Lesser Bears, and the mythical Tree of Knowledge 
with the celestial Northern Pole. The Hebrew Adam can be likewise shown to have been 
a form of the chief one of the earlier seven who fell from heaven. Not only is he the head 
of the first group of Patriarchs turned into historical characters in the Genesis, who are 
seven in number, preceding the ten, but also learn that, in the mysteries o/Samothrace, 
the name of Adam was given to the first and chief one of the Seven Kabiri, who were a 
form of the earliest Seven time-keepers, that failed and fell from heaven! Moreover, the 
Gnostics identify these primary seven by nature and by name as the Seven Mundane 
Daemons who always oppose and resist the human race, because it was on their account 
that the father among the seven was cast down to a lower world! —not to the earth. One 
name of this father is Ialdabaoth. Adam is another name of the same mythical personage, 
and Adam at Samothrace was chief of the Seven. Adam, as the father among the Seven, 
is identical with the Egyptian Arum, who was the father-god in his first sovereignty, and 
whose other name of Adon is identical with the Hebrew Adonai. In this way the second 
creation in Genesis reflects and continues the later creation in the mythos, which explains 
it. The Fall of Adam to the lower world led to his being humanized on earth, by which 
process the celestial was turned into the mortal, and this, which belongs to the 
astronomical allegory, got literalised as the fall of Man, or descent of the soul into matter, 
and the conversion of the angelic into an earthly being. The Roman Church has always 
held that mankind were created in consequence of the fall of the rebel angels who raised a 
revolt in heaven, which was simply a survival of the Mythos, as it is found in the texts 
when Ea, the first father, is said to "grant forgiveness to the conspiring gods," for whose 
"redemption did he create mankind" (Sayce, Hib. Lect. 140). The subject matter is 
celestial solely, and solely celestial because it was astronomical. The Fall was not to the 
earth, nor on the earth, but to a lower heaven, called the Adamah in Genesis; nor did 
Adam and Eve become human realities below because they were outcast gods of 
constellations that were superseded above. The matter is mythical, and I am trying to 
show, as the result of wide research, what is the meaning of that which we call 
"mythical," by tracing the physical origin of the ancient gods, the Hebrew included, to 
natural phenomena, in accordance with data and determinatives still extant. 
As nothing was known concerning the Genesis and nature of the Elohim, it has always 
been a moot question as to whom the speakers addressed the speech, "Let us make man in 
our image!" It has commonly been assumed that the "us" denoted a plural of dignity like 
the "we" of Royalty and Editorship. But it is not so. The Elohim are the Egyptian, 
Akkadian, Hebrew, and Phoenician form of the universal Seven Powers, who are Seven in 
Egypt, Seven in Akkad, Babylon, Persia, India, Britain, and Seven amongst the Gnostics 
and Kabalists. They were the Seven fathers who preceded the father in heaven, because 
they were earlier than the individualized fatherhood on earth. Mythology reflects the 
primitive sociology, as in a mirror, and we could not comprehend the reflection in the 
divine dynasties above until we knew something fundamental about the human 
relationships on the earth beneath. 

The field of Babylonian Mythology is one vast battle-ground between the early 
Motherhood and the later Fatherhood—that is, the Mother in space, in the stellar and lunar 
characters opposed to the later and solar Fatherhood, which became more especially 
Semite; indeed, where the Akkadians wrote the "female and the male," the Semite 
translators prepensely reverse it, and render it by the "male and the female." This setting 
up of the supreme God as solely Male, to the exclusion of the female, has often been 



erroneously attributed to a supposed "Monotheistic Instinct" originating with the Semites! 
In Egypt the solar Fatherhood had been attained in the sovereignty of Atum-Ra, when the 
records begin; but this same battle went on all through her monumental history, more 
fiercely when the Heretics, the Motherites, the Blackheads, were now and again 
reinforced by allies from without. 

When the Elohim said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," there were 
seven of them who represented the seven elements, powers, or souls that went to the 
making of the human being who came into existence before the Creator was represented 
anthropomorphically, or could have conferred the human likeness on the Adamic man. It 
was in the seven-fold image of the Elohim that man was first created, with his seven 
elements, principles, or souls, and therefore could not have been formed in the image of 
the one God. The seven Gnostic Elohim tried to make a man in their own image, but 
could not, from lack of virile power. Thus, their creation in earth and heaven was a 
failure. The Gnostics identify these seven as the Hebrew Elohim who exhorted each 
other, saying, "Let us make man after our image and likeness." They did so; but the man 
whom they made was a failure, because they themselves were lacking in the soul of the 
fatherhood! When the Gnostic Ialdabaoth, chief of the Seven cried, "I am the father and 
God," his mother Sophia replied, "Do not tell lies, Ialdabaoth, for the first man 
(Anthropos Son of Anthropos) is above thee!" That is, man who had now been created in 
the image of the fatherhood, was superior to the gods who were derived from the mother 
parent alone! For, as it had been at first on earth, so was it afterwards in heaven; and thus 
the primary gods were held to be soulless, like the earliest races of men because they had 
not attained the soul of the individualized fatherhood. The Gnostics taught that the spirits 
of wickedness, the inferior Seven, derived their origin from the great mother alone, who 
produced without fatherhood! It was in the image, then, of the sevenfold Elohim that the 
seven races were formed which we sometimes hear of as the pre- Adamite races of men, 
because they were earlier than the fatherhood which was individualized only in the 
second Hebrew creation. These were the primitive people of the past, —the old, despised, 
dark races of the world,~who were held to have been created without souls, because they 
were born before the fatherhood was individualized on earth or in heaven; for, there 
could be no God the Father recognized until the human father had been identified— 
nothing more than the general ancestral soul of the fathers, or the soul of the seven 
elemental forces. These early races were first represented by Totemic zootypes, and were 
afterwards abominated as the dog-men, monkey-men, men with tails, mere preliminary 
people, created in the likeness of animals, reptiles, fish, or birds. Warriors with the body 
of a bird of the valley (?), and men with the faces of ravens, were suckled by the old 
dragon Tiamat; and their type may be seen in the image of the twin Sut-Horus, who has 
the head of a bird of light in front, and the Neh, or black vulture of darkness, behind. Ptah 
and his Seven Khnemmu are the Pygmies. 

As the black race was first on earth, so is it in the mirror of mythology. These are the 
"people of the black heads," who are referred to on the tablets, and classed with reptiles, 
during a lunar eclipse. These typical black heads were the primeval powers of darkness, 
to which the old black aborigines in various lands were likened or assimilated by their 
despisers. In the Babylonian prayers we find the many-named mother-goddess is invoked 
as "the mother who has begotten the black heads." These at times were intentionally 
confused and confounded with their elemental prototypes. Seven such races are described 
in the Bundahish, or aboriginal creation, as the earth-men, the men of the water, the 
breast-eared, the breast-eyed, the one-legged, the bat-men, and the men with tails. These 
were the soulless people. They are also referred to by Esdras as the other people who are 
nothing, "but be like unto spittle"-- that is, when compared with those who descended 
from the father, as Adam, or Arum, on earth, and who worshipped a father, as Atum, or 
Jehovah, in heaven. There were seven creations altogether; seven heavens, which were 



planetary in their final phase, seven creators, and seven races of men. And when the one 
God had been evolved he was placed at the head of the Seven. Hence Ptah in Egypt was 
called the Father of the fathers, who in India are known as the Seven Pitris. So Ahura- 
Mazda, Ialdabaoth, or Jehovah, was placed first in the later creation. 
The chief of the Seven Ali = Elohim as supreme one of the group became the Semitic Al 
or El, designated the highest god, who was the seventh as Saturn; so that El and Jehovah - 
Elohim are identical in their phenomenal origin, whilst El-Shadai is the same son of the 
old suckler who was Typhon in Egypt and Tiamat in Assyria. 
When in the second creation, and in the second chapter of Genesis, Jehovah-Elohim 
forms man from the dust of the ground, and woman from the bone of man, Jehovah is 
that one God who sums up in himself the seven previous powers, precisely as they were 
totalled in Atum-Ra, Sevekh-Ra, Agni, or Ahuramazda. He has been identified for us by 
name as one of the seven Gnostic Elohim, their Iao, or Jehovah. This God appears by 
name in the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, and yet in verse 26 of chapter iv, it is 
stated that "then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah." And again the same God, 
apparently, is announced by name in Exodus vi. 3, where he affirms that he has not been 
known previously by the name of Jah or Jehovah. But the difference between Jehovah- 
Elohim and Jah or Iao is a fact which can only be determined by a knowledge of the 
phenomena. The Jewish Kabalah and Gnosticism have never yet been grappled with or 
discussed in relation to mythology and the rootage in nature. The subject has only been 
nibbled at in a little grazing, with a go-as-you-please, modern interpretation of the 
doctrines concerning spirit and matter. The seven-fold one God is the same in origin, 
whether known by name as Jehovah, Iao-Sabaoth, Sevekh the seven-fold, Ea the fish with 
seven fins, Ra with seven souls, Agni with seven arms, the Gnostic Chnubis or Heptaktis 
with seven rays, El of the Seventh Planet, or the Dragon with seven heads. 
But there is another Jah or Iao, who is the lunar divinity, and who was that Duad of the 
mother and child which becomes a Triad as the child grows into the consort for the same 
mother. It is more ancient than the divine Fatherhood, and preceded the luni-solar trinity 
of father, mother and son. This was the Moon-God who rode on the heavens by the name 
of Jah! and in this phase the zoo-types were superseded by the human likeness, and the 
God was imaged as one in the three-fold human character, when time was reckoned by 
the mother-moon, the child-moon and the virile new moon. The human family exalted to 
heaven as the divine father, mother and child followed the recognition of the personal 
fatherhood in sociology, and the knowledge that the lunar light was derived from the sun. 
Just as this institution superseded the mother and the brotherhood of the Totemic stage on 
earth, so was it in heaven. In each phase the human sociology is reflected in the mirror of 
mythology. One Jewish sign of this trinity, given by Bochart, is a circle containing three 
yod letters, the numerical value of which is 30— or ten days to each of three phases of the 
Moon. Another of the lunar types is the Ass—the three-legged ass of the Bundahish. In 
the Egyptian hieroglyphics the head of the ass is a sign for No. 30 on the same ground; 
and on account of such typology the Jews were charged with being worshippers of an ass. 
Thus the Elohim were the Seven Powers— elemental, pre-planetary or planetary; Jehovah- 
Elohim was the sevenfold one as supreme amongst the planetary Gods, and Jah is the 
three-fold lunar Deity, the trinity in unity— in the likeness of the human family; these 
were again combined in a totality that is ten-fold in the divine fatherhood. Hence the 
Hebrew letter Yod, the sign often, is a symbol of the ineffable name of Iao, Jah, or 
Jehovah; thus the name of the Iao can be expressed in Roman numerals by the 1 and 0, 
which figure the number 10: and this figure of the ten-fold totality so made up is both the 
heavenly man, called Adam Kadmon by the Kabalists, composed of what they term the 
10 Sephiroth, and the Supreme Being worshipped by the whole of Christendom today as 
the one God, supposed to have been made known by Divine revelation to a Monotheistic 
race of men. 



The Egyptian Aten will show us how and why the Jews could use the name of Adon as an 
equivalent for that of Jah or the Yod, which has the numerical value of 10. Aten as a title 
of Highness is determined by the numerical sign of 10, and therefore is an equivalent for 
I O, or Iao of the ten-fold nature, unified at last in Aten or Adon as the Lord, who was 
God of the 10 Tribes. 

Such, to put briefly what I have elaborated elsewhere, was the origin in natural 
phenomena, and such was the unity at last attained in a tenfold totality by the Supreme 
One, the All, the unity not being initial but final: Epluribus unum. 
Mr. Gladstone's last and most pathetic plea—pitiful as a flag of distress fluttering at the 
mast-head of a doomed vessel visibly going down—is that the tale in Genesis is beautiful 
if not true! He says— "If we view it as a popular narrative it is singularly vivid, forcible, 
and effective; if we take it as a poem it is indeed sublime! " But the question is— Is it false 
or true? Have we been deluded, misled, and cheated? The essence of poetry even must be 
truth, and not falsehood, however attractive; must not mislead us on the pretext of being a 
revelation. The older I grow the faster I am losing my faith in all lovely unrealities. 
Consider the effects of such false teaching! Only the other day a child who had been 
taught that God made man out of the dust of the earth was watching an eddying cloud of 
dust being whirled into shape by the wind, when she cried, "Oh, mother, come here! 
Look! I think God is creating another baby! " Our mental standpoint has been made quite 
as childish with regard to other Beginnings. And from every pulpit of the past we have 
been implored to remain as little children at the mother's knee. We have been taught and 
compelled to surrender our reason, doff our manhood and grovel like worms in the earth 
as the successful mode of wriggling our way through this world into heaven. We have 
been robbed by a thief in the night. Children have been cheated out of their natural 
senses, and the mental emasculation of men has taken the place of the physical once 
inculcated by the Christ (Math. xix. 12). Men who are sane on most other subjects will 
give up all common sense on this, and talk like intellectual lunatics. See how the teachers 
of the people, who ought to have learned better for themselves, continue all their life 
through to wear the cast-off vestments of ancient mythology. 

Take Mr. Ruskin as another typical example. He is in many ways a most diligent searcher 
after truth, and a worshipper of all things noble and beautiful. But he was so profoundly 
infected by the falsehood made religious to him in childhood as to be marked by it and 
mentally maimed for life. In his "Modern Painters," he tells us that "man perished in 
seeking knowledge," and "there is not any part of our nature, nor can there be through 
eternity, uninfluenced or unaffected by the fall." 'Tis most painful to see such a man, so 
human at heart, such a seer and lover of all loveliness believing so damnable a lie, and 
endorsing it not only for his own lifetime, but for so long as his writings may last, 
because it was told to him in his own confiding childhood. It is good to waken the eyes of 
men to the beautiful, but still better to lead them to the enduring truth! So soon as my 
own eyes were opened wide enough to take in the immense imposture that has been 
based upon mythology, I gave up my chance of a seat upon the Mount of the Muses, and 
turned aside from the proffered crown of poetry as a seeker after verifiable certitude. And 
after all how can the picture of a divinised fool at the head of affairs with so certain a 
break down in the beginning be beautiful when such a representation reduces the drama 
of the whole universe into a most pitiful one-act farce? Any God who demands the 
worship of fear would be unworthy the service of love. Our modern Atheism is mainly 
the result of this false Theism being torn up by the root to expose its godlessness. 
Falsehood is always fraudulent; no matter how it may be poetized or painted; no matter 
how religiously we have believed it true; or how long we may have been imposed on by 
its fairness; and woe to the revelation that is proved to be false! woe to the sphinx when 
her secret is at last found out! It will then be her turn to be torn. 
The Hebrew Pentateuch has not only retarded the growth of science in Europe for 



eighteen centuries, but the ignorant believers in it as a book of revelation have tried to 
strangle every science at its birth. There could be and was but little or no progress in 
astronomy, geology, biology, or sociology until its teachings were rejected by the more 
enlightened among men—the free thinkers and demonstrators of the facts. The progress 
has been in proportion to the repudiation; and, for myself, the nearer I draw towards 
death the more earnestly—nay, vengefully— do I resent the false teachings that have 
embittered my life— not for myself only, but more for others, and most of all for the 
children. Remember, the education of English children to-day is chiefly in the hands of 
the orthodox teachers, who still give the Bible all the preference over nature and science, 
and who will go on deluding the innocent little ones as long as ever they are paid or 
permitted to do so. But what a dastardly shame it is for us to allow the children to be 
taught that which we know to be false, or do not ourselves believe to be true! The present 
calls upon you with an appealing voice to protect the unborn future against this terrible 
tyranny of the past. Do not any longer let the winding-sheet of death be the swaddlingbands 
put on the helpless little ones for life at their intellectual birth. It is appalling to 
think of the populations that have already passed on victimized, the lives that have been 
wrecked, the brains that have been bruised, and the hearts broken of those who have 
dashed themselves against these barriers to human progress and the freedom of thought, 
which were ignorantly erected and then made sacred in the name of God, by means of 
this Hebrew Book of the Beginnings; in short, by a literalisation of mythology. 

That should inspire one effort more, 
Mightier than any made before. 
The barrier-wall at last shall fall; 
The future must be free for all! 



IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR A. H. SAYCE. 

As an opponent of what may be termed the Aryan school of interpretation it has been my 
special work to show that mythology is not a farrago of foolish fables, nor the mere 
raving of words that have lost their senses. I have amply demonstrated the fact that the 
myths were no mere products of ancient ignorance, but are the deposited results of a 
primitive knowledge; that they were founded upon natural phenomena and remain the 
register of the earliest scientific observation. Those, however, who have not yet learned 
that mythology contains the gnosis of the earliest science, and is the great pre-historic 
record, are unable to teach us anything fundamental concerning it. They cannot read the 
record itself or verify it by continual reference to those natural phenomena on which it is 
based, and by which the truth of the interpretation has to be verified and tested. Without 
this foothold of fact being firmly established mythology resolves itself into a bog without 
a bottom. 

It appears to me that Professor Sayce in his lectures on the Babylonian Religions, is 
frequently dealing with matters which can only be fathomed by the comparative process, 
and that it is misleading to compare the ancient mythologies with the Egyptian omitted, 
whereas he rigorously rejects any light from that source. No Mythological Religion can 
be explained by itself alone. The comparative method is as the bringing together of flint 
and steel to strike the first spark for the necessary light. Without question or inquiry; 
without collecting and comparing the data; without presenting his evidence for the 
assertion, he makes the following authoritative declaration. "Apart from the general 
analogies which we find in all early civilizations, the Script, the Theology and the 
Astronomy of Egypt and Babylonia show no vestiges of a common source." (Hib. Lect. 
p. 136.) 

There may be a pitfall intended in these delusive words as the mythology and so-called 
cosmology are entirely omitted. But you cannot have the Astronomy apart from the 
Mythology by which it was represented! The Prof, says further there is one conclusive 
and fatal objection to the derivation from Egypt "inasmuch as there is no traceable 
connection between the hieroglyphics of Egypt and the primitive pictures out of which 
the cuneiform characters were developed." Professor Sayce is an expert and an authority 
passably orthodox, whose word will be taken for gospel by those who are not qualified to 
question it. I am not an acknowledged authority. I can only plead that my facts may have 
a hearing. Without knowing the facts we cannot attain the truth, and short of the fullest 
truth there is no final authority. The Egyptian hieroglyphics were developed out of the 
same primitive pictures and natural objects as the Akkadian. Both were direct transcripts 
from nature at first, and there is but one origin in nature for the earliest figures. Again he 
says: "If Lepsius were right (in maintaining the opposite view) the primitive 
hieroglyphics out of which the cuneiform characters were evolved would offer 
resemblances to the hieroglyphics. But this is not the case. Even the idea of divinity is 
represented differently in them. In Chaldea it is expressed by an eight-rayed star; in 
Egypt, by a stone-headed axe" (p. 435). 

That is true; and yet in the sole illustration adduced by him the Professor is wrong! The 
evidence of the first witness called is against the truth of his vaguely vast generalization. 
The star with the eight rays is likewise an Egyptian ideograph of divinity; it is a 
numerical figure for the Nunu or Associate Gods. (Burton E.H. 34.) This is the sign of the 
pleroma of the godhead, the divine ogdoad. It was continued as a symbol of Horus-Orion, 
the manifestor of the Eight, the mummy-constellation of the only one who rose again! 
The eight-rayed sign was also a symbol of Hathor and of Taht because, like the eightrayed 



or eight-looped star, it was the numerical figure of the eight gods, hence it was the 
sign of the Abode as Hathor, and the manifestor as Taht-Smen; as it is of Ishtar and of 
Assur. The Egyptians not only used this octave of divinity, they also give us the reason 
for using it. This numerical sign of the primary group of eight gods was not continued as 
the symbol of abstract divinity, and it is rare, but still it exists to refute the Professor, who 
has to plumb far more profoundly before he touches bottom. The five-rayed star, Seb, is 
likewise the hieroglyphic symbol for a god or divinity, so that the Professor's suggested 
inference is false twice over. It will never do to presume too much on the common 
ignorance concerning the buried past of Egypt, the rootage out of range, and the long 
development of the original ideographs. For example, the Egyptian pictograph of a soul is 
a human-headed bird, and that type is continued when the Babylonian dead are described 
as being clad like birds in a garment of feathers. Notwithstanding Mr. Sayce's offhand 
dicta it will be seen in the future that Egypt was as truly the parent of hieroglyphics as she 
is of alphabets! But to show the Professor's determination to avoid Egypt: after pointing 
to the fact that the statues from Telloh bear a great likeness to the Egyptian in the time of 
the pyramid builders; and after admitting that the Egyptian art of sculpture was infinitely 
superior to the Babylonian at that time,~he quietly suppresses Egypt altogether on behalf 
of an entirely unknown "school of sculpture in the Sinaitic peninsula! " (P. 138.) Anything 
rather than look Egypt honestly in the face! 

The Professor is so anxious to hustle unacceptable facts out of sight and get rid of their 
testimony, he asserts that the existence of a "Cushite race" in Chaldea solely depends on a 
misinterpretation and a probable corruption of the text in the Book of Genesis. But Cush 
is the black. The Cushites were the Black race; and the aborigines of Babylonia were the 
Black men of the monuments, the "black-heads" of the Akkadian Texts. Hence the god 
Kus, their deity of eclipse and darkness. The Professor is all hind-before with regard (or 
disregard) to the origins in the black land, the primeval birthplace. He is not yet out of the 
Ark of the Semitic or the shadow of the Aryan beginnings, which have so darkened and 
deluded us; and has to advance backwards a good deal further beyond the Altaic 
boundaries. 

As I have already shown in the "Natural Genesis," the beginnings of mythology in Egypt 
and Akkad are definitely identical. The Old Dragon of Chaos and the Abyss is the same 
whether called Tiamat, Tavthe, or Typhon. By Typhon I mean the beast that imaged the 
first Great Mother, hippopotamus in front and crocodile behind, who therefore is the 
Dragon of Egypt. Her name of Tep, Teb, or Tept is the original of Typhon. 
Tiamat=Tavthe represents that abyss of the beginning which is the Egyptian Tepht. This 
Tepht is the abyss, the source, the void, the hole of the snake, the habitat of the dragon, 
the outrance or uterus of birth as place which preceded personification. Another name for 
the abyss is Abzu, the earlier form of which is the Egyptian Khepsh in the north—that is, 
the Pool of Khep, the hippopotamus or Typhon=Dragon. Tept and Tavthe are one, the 
water-horse and dragon-horse are one. In both forms they give birth to the well-known 
seven primal powers, elemental energies, or demons of physical force, first recognised as 
warring in chaos, who were afterwards cast out and superseded, or moralised as the seven 
wicked spirits. When the primary powers become the seven evil spirits, it is said of them, 
"They are not known among the sentient gods." So in Egypt the same seven were 
denounced as the non-sentient "Children of inertness." And just as the Akkadian seven 
were continued and made the messengers and ministers of wrath to the supreme God, 
Anu, so did the Egyptian seven survive as the seven great spirits in the service of Ra; 
their station being in the region of the Great Bear, the constellation of their mother. (Rit, 
ch. 17.) 

This mother-goddess first brought forth in space and next in time. If we take the star of 
evening and morning as the type of the earliest time, then the mother Tiamat passes into 
Ishtar, goddess of the evening and the morning star. The dragon Tiamat was called the 



Bis-Bis, identified by George Smith with the crocodile as the symbol of Egypt; and 
Ishtar= Venus, the "Lady of Dawn," was called Bis-bisi, which shows the survival of the 
same genetrix in her change of character out of space into time. Another proof of this 
continuity by transformation is furnished when Ishtar as Queen of Heaven (so rendered 
by Mr. Sayce) called herself the "Unique Monster" (p. 267.) Precisely in the same way do 
we see the Typhonian genetrix Ta-Urt in Egypt pass into Hes-ta-Urt (whence Hestaroth 
or Ashtaroth) and Hathor, when the domesticated cow succeeded the water-cow as the 
Zootype of Hes, As (Isis), or of Hathor, the Lunar form of the Goddess of Love, in whose 
person the beast was transfigured into the beauty. 

According to ancient tradition, the culture of Chaldea was brought to that country by a 
Fish-Man, who rose up in "the first year," from that part of the Red or "Erythraean Sea 
which borders upon Babylonia." The original of this type can be identified in Ea the fishgod, 
deity of the house of the deep and divinity of wisdom. Whence came Ea, then, by 
the Red Sea? Lepsius says from Egypt—so says Egypt herself. 

Professor Sayce had previously denied our right to compare the myths of two different 
nations before their relationships have been established by language, and that by 
grammar (which is late), in preference to the vocabulary. Thus mythology is put out of 
court, and words are to be accounted of no weight. Still, it is well to remember that the 
Professor has before now taken his stand on a false bottom that was found to be 
crumbling under foot day by day! It is at least suggestive to find that the name and nature 
of Ea, the oldest Akkadian form of the One God, may be so fully explained by the 
Egyptian Ua (later Ea) for the one, the one alone, isolated as the only one; also the 
Thinker and the Captain of the Boat. It should be premised that the Egyptian U preceded 
the letter or sound of E, hence Ua=Ea. The Egyptian Ua, which passed into Ea, also 
appears in the Akkadian Ua for the Supreme One, the sole Lord or Chief. In one form Ea 
is the fish-god, and the hieroglyphic sign for Ua=Ea is fishing-tackle! Ea was the deity of 
the deep, and Ua=Ea is Boat and Captain both. Of course the fish was the earlier image, 
but the Egyptians had gone far ahead in substituting the work of their own hands for the 
primitive natural types. Ea is the wise god, the thinker and instructor; and Uaua (Eg.) 
means to think, consider, meditate. Ea's prototype in the indefinitely earlier mythology of 
Egypt is Num=Kneph, whose twofold nature is indicated by the two ways of spelling one 
name. As Num he is Lord of the inundation; as Kneph he is the Breath of those who are 
in the firmament. Nef signifies breath, and is also the name of the sailor. Ea is god of the 
watercourse and the atmosphere. Ea was the Antelope of the deep; Num was the bearded 
He-goat; the Sea-goat of the Zodiac. One type of Num is the serpent; as it is of Ea. Ea is 
said to represent the House, which is a in Egyptian. In a case of this kind Professor Sayce 
can only perceive or will only admit a "general analogy." 

Egyptian also offers the likeliest original for the name of Oan or Oannes, the Greek form 
of Ea, the fish, seeing that Ua=Oa, and that An is the fish in Egyptian; whilst An, to 
appear, to show, is determined by the fish in the water-precinct, where the fish is the 
revealer who emerged from the waters as Ea-an, or Oannes. (Denkmaler 3, 46 C.) If the 
original Fish-Man came from Egypt, it would probably be as the Crocodile=Dragon, the 
Typhonian type of both the ancient mother and her son Sevekh. The crocodile is the fish 
that passes the day on dry land and the night in the waters. Its name of Sevekh is identical 
with that of the number seven; and Ea is connected with a typical fish of seven fins (?). 
The crocodile, as Plutarch tells us, was a supreme type of the one God, or, as the name 
shows, of the seven-fold powers in one image. Sevekh was the same good demon of one 
Cult in Egypt that Num-Ra was in the other, but indefinitely earlier. 
To my apprehension, the Babylonian "House of the Seven bonds of heaven and earth," is 
identical with the "House of the Seven Halls and Seven stairways," assigned to Osiris; 
and the God Nebo as stellar, lunar, and planetary Deity; as prophet and proclaimer, is 
identical with Sut-Anup (later Nub and Anubis) in a dozen different aspects; whilst 



Nebo-Nusku = the double Anubis. Further, the same Great Mother who was Venus as 
Hathor became the mother-moon. Professor Sayce seems to think that where the moon is 
male it cannot also be female. If I am right, Ishtar must also have had a lunar character as 
the Mother-Goddess. But Professor Sayce makes the point-blank assertion that Ishtar was 
not a goddess of the moon. (P. 256.) "The moon was conceived of as a God, not as a 
Goddess." He assures us that Ishtar was the spirit of earth and the Goddess of Love, the 
dual divinity of the planet Venus. But there is no male moon without the female Goddess. 
It is not a question of "Conception," but of begettal. The observers were concerned with 
the lunar phases as natural facts, the mother or reproducing phase being first. The mother 
Goddess brought forth the Child of light, whether as Taht, Khunsu, Duzu, Tammuz, or 
Horus, and there is no lunar myth possible without the motherhood, which preceded the 
fatherhood. The child of the moon in one phase is her consort in the other. Thus when 
Ishtar makes up to Izdubar, the solar god who represents the later fatherhood, he twits her 
on the subject of her child-consort, the bridegroom of her youth, whom she had so long 
pursued, like Venus wooing Adonis. In the legend of Tammuz and Ishtar the Goddess, in 
descending to the underworld in search of her bridegroom, passes through seven gates. In 
each of these she is stripped of a part of her glory, represented as her ornaments. On her 
return she ascends through seven other gates, when her ornaments are restored to her, 
both being done according to ancient rules. These gates are the 14 lower lunar mansions 
in which the lunar Osiris was torn into 14 parts by Typhon, the Power of darkness, when 
Isis descended in search of her beloved. They likewise coincide with the 14 houses of 
judgment and the 14 trials in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which will explain the tests 
and punishments of the Goddess as the pre-solar type of the suffering and triumphing 
souls who had to win their crown of justification in these 14 trials. Besides which one of 
Ishtar's titles is that of Goddess Fifteen, because that is the day of mid-moon in a solilunar 
month of 30 days. Professor Sayce leaves this title unnoticed, and then denies that 
Ishtar was a goddess of the moon! Moreover, there is another test to be applied in natural 
phenomena. The Goddess in her Course is credited with various infidelities. Not only is 
she charged with having clung year after year to her child-consort Tammuz, as the 
Bridegroom, amongst her victims are the Eagle (Alala) the Lion, the Horse, Tabulu the 
shepherd, and Isullanu, the gardener. These, as I read the Mythos, refer to certain 
constellations, corner-keepers or others, to be found in the lunar course, which cannot 
apply to the planet Venus or to the Spirit of the earth. A sign of the lunar reckoning may 
be read in the statement that Ishtar rode the horse with whip and spur for seven leagues 
galloping, or during one quarter of the moon. Another lunar sign may be seen in the 
statement that Ishtar had also torn out the teeth of the Lion seven by seven, or for seven 
nights together, in her passage through the Lion-quarter of the moon; Eagle, Horse 
(Pegasus?), and Lion must probably stand for three of the four quarters of a lunar zodiac. 
Also the Errand of Ishtar corresponds to the descent of Isis into the underworld in search 
of Osiris, who was torn into 14 parts, and Isis was the lunar Goddess. Moreover, Ishtar 
robbed her lover, Isullanu, of his eye, and in his blindness mocked him; just as Horus and 
Samson were each robbed of an eye. Lastly, the Bow was lunar and Ishtar was Goddess 
of the Bow. Here, as elsewhere, we are left utterly adrift if we cannot secure a firm 
anchorage in the various natural phenomena themselves, by which the types of divinity 
must be determined. Professor Sayce acknowledges his inability to account for the name 
of Ishtar. "Its true etymology was buried in the night of antiquity." "It is therefore quite 
useless to speculate on the subject." (P. 257.) And so, of course, there is an end of it, the 
last word being said. It is just possible, however, that Egypt, from which the Professor 
looks religiously away, has something final yet to say on these matters. Not perhaps by 
such interpretation as Mr. Renouf s. Professor Sayce admits that Ishtar appears as Esther 
in the Book of Esther. Here it is Hadassah who figures in the mythical character of Ishtar 
as the virgin dedicated or betrothed during twelve months. Whether the typical character 



is thus continued or not, it is the fact that the word "Shtar"* is the Egyptian name of the 
Betrothed female, and Shta denotes that which is most mystical, secret, and holy, the very 
mother of mystery. Ishtar was the betrothed of Tammuz; she was called the "Bridal 
Goddess," the goddess who was mystically betrothed to the child that grew up to become 
her own Consort. She remained the Mother of Mystery. Thus Ishtar= Venus, the goddess 
of love, was the Shtar or Betrothed, as the pre-monogamic consort or bride, i.e., the 
"bridal goddess," who is denounced in Revelation as the Great Harlot. 
Again, it appears to me that much of what I have already said of Horus, of Taht, of 
Khunsu, Apollo, and other forms of the soli-lunar hero is applicable not only to Mithras 
but to Merodach, and to an Assyrian god called Adar (provisionally). I may claim to have 
discovered the origin of this particular mythical character through seeking the 
foundations in natural phenomena. Adar is a solar hero who is especially related to night 
and darkness, and yet is a deity of light. He is a warrior and champion of the gods. He is 
the voice or supreme oracle of the divinities. He is the son, the messenger, the revealer of 
the Solar god hidden in the deep of the underworld. In other features he is like Taht and 
Khunsu, each of whom is the visible representative, the revealer, of the sun-god by night. 
Adar was designated "Lord of the date," just as Taht was called "Lord of the date-palm." 
Adar was likewise "Lord of the Pig," just as Khunsu is the personified lord over the pig 
of Typhon in the disk of the moon at full (Zodiac of Denderah). This is the god who, as 
Adonis, was slain by the pig or boar at one season of the year, but who was victor over it 
in the first of the six upper signs, which is the sign of Pisces in the Zodiac of Denderah. f 
This same character is continued in Tammuz, the deity who was first brought forth by the 
mother alone, to become her consort, the only one of a twofold nature; and who was 
made the later revealer of a Father in heaven as the child of the solar god when reborn as 
such of the mother-moon. The month of Tammuz in the Aramaic calendar is (roughly) 
our month of June. This is the month of Duzu in the Assyrian calendar. In the Egyptian it 
was the month Mesore, as June in the sacred year, the month of the re-birth of the river 
and of the child Horus, who was re-born (Mes) of the river at the re-birth of the 
Inundation. In the pre-Osirian Mythos the child was the representative of Turn and to be 
the re-born (Mes) Turn or the child of Turn, as was Iu-em-hept, the Eternal Word, would 
be renderable as Tum-mus or Messu, just as Ra-messu means the child of the solar god, 
although I am not aware that Turn does appear under that form of name, and I am 
supposing that Tammuz was a development from the Egyptian Turn. For this reason! We 
are told in the texts J that Turn is the duplicate of Aten=Adon=Adonai; and Adon = 
Tammuz. Aten was the child-God; Turn was the father. This child of the sun-god was 
always born in the moon as the solar light of the world by night, the son of the Spirit of 
the deep who was the hidden sun in the under-world. He is pourtrayed in the disk of the 
full-moon both as Horus (or Tum-mes) and 



* Champollion. Gram : 1292. f Macrobius, Saturn. 121. % Records 4.95. 
Khunsu (Planisphere and Zodiacs of Denderah). Now, when the actual deluge began with 
the sun in the sign of the Beetle (later Crab), and in the month of Tammuz or Mesore, the 
moon rose at full in the sign of the sea-goat, and the child was therefore reborn of the full 
moon in that sign, and so on through the three water signs, which are consequently solar 
on one side of the Zodiac and lunar on the other! Rightly read this absolutely proves the 
Egyptian origin of the signs set in heaven in relation to the Inundation, the lunar zodiac 
being first, and identifies the child of Turn as the original of the Akkadian Dumu-zi- 
Apzu, and of the Semite "Timmuz (or Dimmuz) of the Flood;"* not Noah's unfortunate 
deluge, but the inundation of the Nile, the deluge that began in the month Mes-Horus or 
Tum-Mes=Tammuz, and culminated at the autumn equinox as it always has done, and 
did this year. The Akkadian name of the month Tammuz is Su-Kul-na, "seizer of seed," 



and to explain that we must go back to the sign of the Beetle set above by the Egyptians, 
because the beetle Khepr began to roll up his seed at that time to preserve it from the 
coming flood. The Beetle is the sign of Cancer in the oblong Zodiac of Denderah. 
Professor Sayce's account of Tammuz and Ishtar shows neither gauge nor grip of the real 
subject matter. He tells us that Adonis=Tammuz was "slain by the Boar's Tusk of 
Winter," and his "funeral-festival" was held in June because the "bright Sun of the 
springtide was then slain and withered by the hot blasts of summer" (pp. 227-9). But here 
is the true rendering as restored according to the Egyptian myth, which was extant in the 
pre-monumental times of the Shus-en-Har, who are claimed to have been the Rulers for 
13,000 years before the time of Menes. The Solar God as Source of Life was re-born in 
natural phenomena, as his own child the Horus of Light in the Moon; the Child of the 
Lotus in the Water; the Seed as the Bread of Life in the Corn. In each phase he was 
opposed by Sut-Typhon in the form of Darkness, Drought, or Death. Previous to the 
Inundation he was pierced by Sut in the parching Drought. Then it was the errand of Isis 
as of Ishtar to fetch the Water of Life. This she did as the Lunar Mistress of the Water. At 
the birth of the River in Mesore-Tammuz, the Moon rose at full in the first Lunar Watersign, 
whither she had gone for the Water of Life in the under- world—or, astronomically, 
entered the lowest signs. Here is one proof. Papsukal is the Regent of Capricorn, the first 
water-sign, and he is the messenger that hurries off to the Sun-God (who is certainly not 
the dead Tammuz!) with the news of Ishtar's arrival in search of the Fountain of Life. 
Isis in her search was accompanied by Anup, her golden dog; and in the Hermean Zodiac 
Anup is stationed in the sign of the Sea-Goat, where he is shaking the Systrum of Isis to 
frighten away the Typhonian influences. --(Plutarch.) Here is additional evidence. When 
the Moon rose at full in these three signs they represented the Waters of Life to Egypt, in 
accordance with the then flowing Inundation of the Nile; but when the Sun itself entered 
the sign of Capricorn, in winter, the passage became the "Crossing of the Waters of 
Death, " for the Solar God, or the Souls in the Eschatological phase. Hence the typical 
"Two Waters" of the Egyptian Mythos, called the Pools of the North and South. My 
contention is, that the imagery thus set in heaven to reflect the seasons on earth was 
Egyptian from the first, and that it can only be rightly read in the original version 
according to time and season in Egypt. 

Professor Sayce makes the perplexing assertion that "the month of Tammuz was called in 
the Akkadian Calendar 'the month of the Errand of Ishtar.'" But the month Ki-Innanna 
(formerly read Ki-Gingir-na), the message of Nanna or Ishtar, is Ululu, two months later 
than Tammuz; and the message of Ishtar, as Virgo, in August, is not to be converted into 
the legend of her descent into Hades in June, when the Sun was in Cancer and the full 
Moon was in Capricorn. 
Merodach represents the Sun in Scorpio, as the deity of that sign, but this 



* Sayce, p. 233. 

does not mean that he is the Sun itself! In the Egyptian mythos it was as the Sun in 
Scorpio that Osiris was betrayed to his death by Typhon. Then his son, Horus=Merodach, 
was reborn of the Moon in the Bull, the first of the six upper signs, to become the avenger 
of his victimised father! Thus as heir-apparent of the Solar God, the Hero comes to the 
aid of the Moon during an eclipse, and overcomes the Dragon of Darkness. 
This reveal er of the father-god in natural phenomena, under whatsoever name, is 
supremely important as the mythical character that supplied the type to current 
Christology When the scientific fact was first discovered the doctrine of a divine trinity, 
consisting of father, mother, and child, was then established. The child was the light of 
the sun, his father being the hidden source in the underworld, his mother the moon, as 
reproducer of that light. This reflex image of the father's glory, his light of the world by 



night, the representative of his power in the six upper signs, whilst the sun was in the six 
lower signs, is the child as Horus, as the re-born Tum=Tum-mes, Tammuz, Apollo, 
Merodach, the hero, the warrior against the dragon, and the powers of darkness at night 
or during the lunar eclipse, the Masu, the anointed, the only begotten, furnished by the 
past as a factor in the theology of the present, which meets with no recognition 
whatsoever from Professor Sayce, or from any other writers on mythology who are 
known to me. 

Except in the technique of his scholarship, one sees but little sign that the professor has 
thought out his far-reaching subject fundamentally. For example, Berossos repeats a 
Babylonian description of nature, which he distinctly affirms to have been allegorical. 
The professor admits (p. 392) that these "composite creatures were really the offspring of 
Totemism"; that is, they were symbolical Zootypes. And yet he can say of them, "we may 
see (in these) a sort of anticipation of the Darwinian hypothesis"! But men with wings, 
two heads, and horses' feet, centaurs, mermaids, and sphinxes, belong to a mythical mode 
of representing ideas, not to "imperfect, first attempts of nature," in accordance with the 
doctrine of development. Such confusion of thought is likely to make the truth of the 
matter doubly indistinguishable. Again, he tells us that "the god was a beast before he 
became a man," whereas he means that the primary forces recognised in nature first were 
represented by Zootypes before the superhuman powers were imaged in the human 
likeness. He does not define what he means by "worship" or "religion" when he imports 
these terms into the remoter past, and thus sets up a false standard of judgment. Worship 
of the heavenly bodies was nothing more than the looking up to them as the tellers of 
time, even though they may be called oracles! The Kronian gods were only types of time 
in a world without clocks and watches. He speaks of theological conceptions becoming 
mythical, whereas the mythical representation preceded the theological phase. He can 
"find no trace of ancestor-worship in the early literature of Chaldea" (p. 358). But I doubt 
whether a man who resolves the Daemon of Socrates into an Intuition, can know how or 
where to look for the proof. He tells us the earliest Babylonian religion was purely 
Shamanistic, only the spirits it recognised were not spirits in "our sense of the word," 
whichever sense that may be! Now Shamanism is the most primitive kind of Spiritualism, 
but it includes human spirits as well as the elementals; and as human spirits include the 
spirits of ancestors, and as Mul-lil is the Lord of ghost-world, and Nergal is the god of 
apparitions, called the Khadhi (which agrees with the Egyptian Khati for the dead), then 
the Shamanism of Babylonia must have included a worship of ancestors! The nonevolutionist 
cannot truly interpret the past for us, even when reinforced by the nonspiritualist. 
It matters little to me that Professor Sayce should ignore my work, but it does matter 
greatly to him that he should have to ignore all the facts which are fatal to his 
assumptions. He cannot get rid of the facts by thus ignoring them. He cannot establish a 
negation by closing his eyes to all that is positively opposed to his conclusions. In trying 
to do so he has blindly shut out all that Egypt had to say and show and suggest. That 
simple policy was practised long ago by the ostrich, and the ruse is generally 
acknowledged to have proved a preposterous failure. As the superstructure of 
Assyriology is now reared and settling down securely upon fixed foundations, I am 
willing to discuss the matters here mooted in the press or debate with Professor Sayce 
upon the platform, where I will undertake to demonstrate the common origin of the 
mythological astronomy, and prove that the Egyptian is the primeval parent of the 
Babylonian. Meanwhile the foregoing pages and the following comparative list (not to 
say anything of the "Natural Genesis") contain a sufficient answer to his declaration that 
the two have nothing in common but general analogies:— 

EGYPTIAN. BABYLONIAN. 
Tepht, the abyss = Tavthe, the abyss. 



Khepsh, pool of hippopotamus. =Abzu, the deep. 

Bau, the hole or void. = Baku, the void personified. 

Tep, Typhon, the dragon. = Tavthe = Tiamat, the dragon. 

Matut, Storm-God. =Matu, Storm-God. 

his as the Scorpion. = Ishtar as the Scorpion. 

Triad of his, Nephtys, andHorus. = Triad of Ishtar, Tillil, and Tammuz. 

Ra, God of the Double House. = Ea, God of the House. 

Five Celestials born of Seb. = Five Aniinas, or spirits of heaven. 

Seven evil spirits. = Seven evil spirits. 

Seven servants ofRa. = Seven servants ofAnu. 

The Nunu, 8 gods or spirits. = The Animus, or 8 spirits of earth. 

The Put Circle of 9 Spirits, or gods of = The Igigi, 9 spirits of heaven. 

heaven. 

Num, god of the deep and inundation, =Ea, god of the deep and the "good 

and the "good wind." wind." 

Ua = Ea, the captain. = Ea, god of the boat. 

Hathor, the white heifer. = Ishtar, the white heifer. 

Shetar, the betrothed. = Ishtar, the "bridal goddess." 

Anup, the announcer. = Nebo, the announcer. 

Double Anubis. = Nebo andNusku. 

Taht-Khunsu. =Adar. 

Horus (luni-solar hero). = Merodach. 

Turn asAten or the Messu. = Tammuz. 

Kek, god of darkness. = Kus, god of darkness. 

A, moon, lunar divinity. = A, lunar divinity. 

Khekh, a spirit. = Igigi, spirits. 

Rupa, the prince. = Rubu, the prince. 

Nerau, the chief, the victor. = Nerra, the victor. 

Ser, chief, head. = Sar, king. 

Tabu, great bear or hippopotamus. = Dabu, the great bear or hippopotamus. 

GERALD MASSEY. 

P.S.— By the by, is Professor Sayce equally certain that he is correct in his dates of 
precession? He gives the entrance of the vernal equinox into the signs of the Bull and 
Ram as being about the years, 4,700 and 2,500 B.C. I found that Cassini and other 
astronomers gave the figures 4,565 and 2,410 B.C. And from data kindly supplied to me 
by the present Astronomer Royal from independent calculations made at Greenwich, 
these were the dates, corroborated and confirmed. 



THE DEVIL OF DARKNESS IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION. 

(Fuller Egyptian and Gnostic Data, with references to authorities, may be found in the Author's "Natural Genesis. ") 

There are two things which I have come to look upon as constituting the unpardonable 
sin of the father and mother against the helpless innocence of infancy. The one is in 
allowing their little children to run the risk of blood-poisoning—such as was once suffered 
by a child of mine—from the filthy fraud of vaccination. The other is in permitting the 
mind and soul of their children to be inoculated with the still more fatal virus of the old, 
false, orthodox dogmas and delusions, by allowing them to believe that the fables of 
ancient mythology are the sacred and solely true "Word of God," if they are found in the 
Hebrew Scriptures— the one book of the religiously ignorant. Generation after generation 
we learn, unlearn, and relearn the same lying, legendary lore, and it takes the latter half of 
all one's lifetime to throw off the mass of corrupting error instilled into us during the 
earlier half, even when we do break out and slough it off in a mental eruption, and have 
to find ourselves in utter rebellion against things as they are. Unfortunately, the mass of 
people never do get rid of this infection, nor of the desire to give their disease to others. 
The fact of the matter is, the Christian dogmas and doctrines began as such with being 
unintelligible and inexplicable; they were to remain as mysteries; and any true 
explanation of them is death to their false pretentions. It is my method to explode by 
explaining them. Take the doctrine of the Trinity for example. Can any theologian 
throughout all Christendom to-day give us any intelligible account of its origin and 
primary meaning? Not one. For that we must go to mythology, which was earlier than our 
theology, and which alone enables us to explain its primitive mysteries. The natural 
genesis of the Trinity was found, and is to be refound, in lunar phenomena. The moon, in 
mythology and chronology, was a time-measurer of a three-fold nature. At fifteen days of 
age, or full-moon, it was the mother-moon. Hence Ishtar, in Akkad, is designated 
Goddess 15. The lessening, waning moon was her little one, the child of the moon, who 
became the virile one, the adult, as the horned new moon, the reproducer who was fabled 
to rebeget himself on the mother moon, and thus become his own father, as a natural 
mode of describing natural phenomena. 

These three are eternally one in external nature— a Trinity always manifesting monthly, 
and the triple aspect was humanly, or naturally, expressed by means of the mother, child, 
and reproducing male, which three are also one in the total human being. In the Christian 
Iconography, you will sometimes see the Virgin Mary enthroned in the new moon, with 
the child in her arms, and these two, with the horned or phallic moon, constitute the 
Christian Trinity in Unity. Such was the primitive mode of thinking in things, afterwards 
continued in a mystical or doctrinal phase. Such, I affirm to be the origin of the Trinity in 
mythology, which preceded religion; and when this is applied abstractly, to the nature of 
deity, or to mind in nature, by means of metaphysic, the result is an imposition, and he or 
she who practices imposition, consciously or not, is an impostor. No such thing can be 
known as a triune or triangular God; but we are able to show how such types originated. 
When our words are examined, we shall frequently find that our metaphysic has been 
abstracted, or falsely filched from primitive physics, as was the Trinity by Plato, which 
was continued by the Christian Fathers, who tell us that but for Plato they would never 
have understood the doctrine of the Trinity. As with the Trinity, so it is with the origin of 
the theological Devil. The crucial question of the savage man, Friday, was too 
fundamental for the theology of Robinson Crusoe. Friday asks, "But, if God much strong, 
much mighty as the devil, why God no kill the devil, and so make him no more wicked?" 



Crusoe, imitating other theologists, not knowing what to say, "pretended not to hear 
him." (I am told this passage has been omitted from certain recent editions.) To give an 
answer to that question we shall have to go round to work. It would never do to begin a 
lecture on this subject like the well-known chapter headed "Snakes in Iceland," which 
consisted of the statement, "there are no snakes in Iceland!" If I did, my lecture might be 
summed up in the words, "there is no devil." But every belief, superstition, and mental 
type, had its natural genesis once, the devil included. 

The result of 14 years' research in the Records of the Past is a personal conviction that the 
human mind has long suffered an eclipse, and been darkened and dwarfed in the shadow 
of ideas, the real meaning of which has been lost to the moderns! Myths and allegories, 
whose significance was once unfolded to the initiates in the ancient mysteries, have been 
adopted in ignorance, and re-issued as real truths divinely vouchsafed to mankind for the 
first and only time when found in the Hebrew writings! The earlier religions had their 
myths interpreted by means of the oral and unwritten Wisdom. We have ours 
misinterpreted; and a great deal of what has been imposed upon us as God's direct, true, 
and sole revelation to man, is a mass of inverted myths, under the shadow of which men 
have been cowering as timorously as birds in the stubble, when a kite in the shape of a 
hawk is held hovering overhead to keep them down; as I have seen it practised in 
England! 

The parables and types of the primeval thinkers have been elevated to the "Sphere," as 
the "hawk," or "serpent," the "bull," or the "crab," that give names to certain groups of 
stars, and we are precisely in the same relationship to these religious parables and 
allegories as we should be to astronomical facts, if we thought the serpent and bull, lion, 
sea-goat, and ram were real animals up in heaven, instead of constellations with 
symbolical names. The Jews picked up various traditions of other races. Moses, they tell 
us, was an initiate in all the learning of the Egyptians. And these myths have been so 
handled as to efface their primitive features altogether. They have been so "sweated" 
down, by later theologies, to make capital—get gold-dust, as it were, out of them—that 
they can only be recognised by comparison with the earlier copies yet extant among other 
nations, from which the Jews derived their versions. 

Fossil remains, found in the lowermost strata of human thought, have been preserved as 
divine patterns for the ignorant and superstitious of later ages. The simple realities of the 
earliest times were expressed by signs and symbols, and these have been taken and 
applied to later thought, and converted into theological problems and metaphysical 
mysteries, for which our theologians have no basis whatever, and can only wrangle over 
en Vair; they cannot touch solid earth with one foot when they want to kick opponents 
with the other; and when they try to bite you very viciously they find that they have only 
been furnished with a set of teeth that are false. The only possible way of exposing the 
false pretensions of theological dogmas is by explaining them from the root, and showing 
what they meant as mythos. The orthodox teaching which is founded on the "Fall of 
Man," is shattered, even as a pane of glass is fractured at a blow, when once we can apply 
the Doctrine of Development. 

The Hebrew devil, or Satan, means the opponent or adversary, and the first great natural 
adversary recognised by primitive man was Darkness— simply darkness, the constant and 
eternal enemy of the light— that is, the power of darkness was literal before it became 
metaphorical, moral, or spiritual. 

Hence darkness itself was the earliest devil or adversary, the obstructor and deluder of 
man, the eternal enemy of the sun. We speak of the "jaws of darkness;" and darkness was 
the vast, huge, swallower of the light, night after night. We know this was identified as 
the primary power, because the primitive or early man reckoned time by nights, and the 
years by Eclipses. This mode of reckoning was first and universal. So many darks 
preceded so many days. The dark power is primarily in all the oldest traditions and cults 



of the human race. Hence sacrifice was first offered to the powers of darkness. The forewords 
of universal mythology are "there was darkness." All was dark at first within the 
mind; and the all was the darkness that created dread without. The influence of night, the 
eclipse, and the black thunder-cloud being first felt, the primitive man visibly emerges 
from the shadow of darkness as deeply impressed and indelibly dyed in mind as was his 
body with its natural blackness. The black man without was negroid within, as his 
reflection remains in the mirror of mythology. The darkness then, in natural phenomena, 
was the original devil that put out the light by swallowing it incessantly, as the subtle 
enemy, the obstructor, deluder, and general adversary of man. The first form of the Devil 
was female, called the Dragon of Darkness, who was Tiamat in Akkad, and Typhon in 
Egypt. Typhon gave birth to Sut, who became the Egyptian devil—our Satan—and who 
was represented by the Black jackal, the voice of Darkness; and Sut, the black one, gives 
us the name of Soot, the black thing. Angro-Mainyus, the Persian devil, was the black 
one of the two powers of Light and Darkness. 

Primitive man, however, did not imagine or personify a devil behind visible phenomena, 
that caused the darkness. Darkness itself was the devil, and even as late as the Parsee 
Bundahish (which means the aboriginal creation) external darkness is the devil. 
The seven devils or seven heads of the old Dragon, in the Akkadian myths of creation, 
are born in the mountains of sunset, which shows the same natural genesis in physical 
phenomena. They had their birth-place where the sun went down. At the same place, in 
the West, the Egyptians stationed the Great Crocodile that swallowed down the lights, 
sun, moon, and stars, as they set each night, in its wide-open jaws of darkness. Hence the 
crocodile was an ideograph of the swallowing darkness— and of earth, or the waters 
below, called the Abyss; and the tail of the crocodile remained in the Egyptian 
hieroglyphics as the sign of Kam— that is, of blackness or darkness. The crocodile was the 
typical Dragon of the waters below, the old Typhon, as the serpent was of the waters, or 
overwhelming darkness, above. Hor-Apollo tells us the Egyptians represent the mouth by 
a serpent, because the serpent is all mouth. This was another figure of the swallower, as 
the Akhekh and the Apap serpent. Akhekh signifies darkness, and Apap means that 
which rises up vast and gigantic— in short, the monster— the typical Apap being based on 
the great African rock-snake. Here, then, is the reason why the mythical dragon and the 
old serpent are identical or interchangeable in mythology, each being a representative of 
the devil of darkness and of Satan, that old serpent, who imaged the evil which was first 
perceived in physical phenomena. Out of the darkness leapt the lightning-bolt, and in the 
deep waters lurked another subtle foe of life, and thus the jaws, the fang, and the sting of 
death were assigned to the devil of darkness, who gradually assumed the character of 
man's mortal enemy that brought death into the world. The course of this development 
can be traced from the beginning, in physical darkness, to the culmination, in a psychotheistic 
phase, for everything yields to an application of the evolutionary method— and 
you may depend upon it that evolution has come into the world to stay; and evolution and 
the Hebrew genesis cannot co-exist in the same mental world. 

The earliest mode of representing the eternal alternation of external phenomena called 
night and day, or darkness and light, the good and bad, is to be found in the universal 
myth of the Two Brothers, who are born twins,— very imperfect versions of which may be 
found in the legends of Cain and Abel, and of Esau and Jacob. In this myth, the Dark and 
Day are born twins of the Great Mother, and these brothers are pourtrayed as always 
being at enmity with each other, and in conflict before their birth, as are the darkness and 
the light when struggling at dawn! They fight one another in the effort of each to get born 
first. This becomes the well-known struggle of the birthright, which is universal in 
mythology. Far more perfect versions of the same mythos are extant among the blacks of 
Australia, the Red Indians of America, the Bushmen and Hottentots of Africa, more 
perfect, because simpler, nearer to nature, and less moralized. It is the myth of Sut-Horus 



in Egypt. Sut-Horus is the dual manifestor of dark and light, who is depicted with the 
double head of the black vulture of night and the golden hawk of light, upon one body. 
The dark one was born first, because darkness was first cognised; but they both continued 
to struggle for supremacy after birth, as they had done before it, because they dramatised 
the ceaseless and endless alternation of night and day, of dark and light, seen in the 
heavens at eve and dawn, in the orb of the moon, and the lengthening of darkness, or of 
light, in autumn and in spring! Here again the dark power is the devil, the bad dev, and 
the light is the good power, the bright dev. 

The same conflict, based upon the alternation of light and darkness, is pourtrayed as the 
struggle of St. George, our solar hero, who conquers the dragon just as Horus overthrows 
the Apap dragon upon the monuments of Egypt. And when the devil's knell is rung 
annually at Horbury, in Yorkshire, England, that is in celebration of the death of the 
Dragon of Darkness; and the same custom is also continued in ringing out the old year, 
on the last night in December. When in New South Wales I picked up a tradition of the 
blacks. The Devil, called Mullion, lived in a very tall tree, at Girra, on the Barwon river, 
and used to eat black fellows! They tried to burn down this vast tree, in which the Devil 
of darkness dwelt, but the fires were always put out by invisible spirits. Then they got a 
red mouse, put a lighted straw in his mouth, and started him up the tree. The loose bark 
caught fire, the tree blazed for weeks, the devil was burned out, and never came back 
again. This red mouse is also a type of Horus in Egypt. Naturally, then, the devil of 
darkness was the first divinity, because the dark power is primal! When it came to 
worshipping, or, rather, to propitiating, by offering the fruits of fear, it was the dark 
power that predominated, because this struck terror and elicited fear. "Primos in orbe 
deos fecit timorl" Sometimes these twins of darkness and light are called the ugly and 
beautiful brothers. And here the persistence of the mythical types may be noticed, for 
these two are not only continued as the Sut-Horus, or double Horus of Egypt, but they are 
likewise extant in that museum of mythical types, the Catacombs of Rome, as the Twin- 
Christs, one of which is pourtrayed as the beautiful youth; the other is the little, old, and 
ugly Christ. Just as it was in the pre-Christian times, from which these figures were a 
Gnostic survival. 

Next, Mind becomes an element in the manifestation of phenomena; and in the American 
myths, the born twins are called the bad mind and the good mind. In this phase the twinbrothers 
are not only mental, they are also moralized on their way to becoming the dual 
divinity, or modern God and Devil. In the Avesta, and other Persian Scriptures, for 
example, the twin-brothers can be traced from the Natural Genesis in phenomena, as light 
and darkness, to their becoming personified as divinity and devil, in Ahura-Mazda, the 
God of mental light, and Angro-Mainyus, the devil of mental darkness. Here the older 
bogey of the night has been found out! Men had dipped into the dark, and suffered from 
the shadow of eclipse so long, and passed through them so often and so safely, that their 
essential unreality was discovered at last. Thus Angro-Mainyus, the black mind, is only 
accredited with the creation of all that is untrue, unreal, and utterly delusive in nature. 
The light had now become the enduring reality, and darkness was only its deluding 
shadow. They now recognised that the dark one in the physical, mental, or moral domain, 
was only negative and negational; the bright one, the god of light, the good mind, was the 
Supreme Being, the reality, therefore the author of all that was finally real and eternally 
true! These are the two causes of the universe—it is said; —they were united from the 
Beginning, and, therefore, are called the Twins, and the Persian "Revelation" contains the 
Gnosis and explanation of the doctrine concerning these twin spirits. 
Such was the natural origin of that doctrine of duality, which is discussed now-a-days as 
a metaphysical mystery, and as if it were a reality from the root of it, made known to the 
world by direct revelation! The origin of Good and Evil in the nature of man considered 
as a being of flesh and spirit, as the personal embodiment of two opposite principles, 



assumed to have a spontaneous or automatic tendency towards good on the part of the 
one which is supposed to originate in the spirit, and the other to originate in the flesh, as a 
natural antagonist, is traceable to this most primitive interpretation of the duality called 
good and evil in external phenomena, which was continued in the mental and moral, and 
lastly in the psycho-theistic phase of thought. In its latest stage the doctrine is destructive 
of individual responsibility in man and of personal unity in deity, or the operating 
Intelligence. There was no revelation, no new point of departure in phenomena, nothing 
added to nature or human knowledge in these later views of mythology into metaphysic, 
philosophy, or theology, in which the supposed revelation of newer truth was largely 
founded on a falsification of the old. 

We are not only contemporaries of savage men in many of our current customs and 
benighting beliefs, we are also the victims of his leavings—various of our superstitions 
being the primitive fetishism that still survives in the last stage of perversion. 
But now for a development of the Devil! 

In Egypt the old Devil of darkness, as Sut-Typhon or Sevekh, the Crocodile-headed 
divinity, acquired a soul in the stars and a place in heaven, as Plutarch says. To him was 
given the Crocodile or Dragon Constellation in the planisphere, whose casting out of 
heaven is described in the Book of Revelation, and in the Persian Bahman Yasht, where 
Sut, or Sevekh the Dragon, that old serpent, is identified as Satan, the eternal adversary of 
souls, just as it is in the Egyptian Ritual of the Dead. Thus, the devil that first rose up in 
revolt, as the natural darkness, called the Dragon of the deep, the rebel against the lightgod, 
was gradually transformed into a supposed starry or spiritual being, the vice-dieu of 
the dark, who, in the Christian scheme, is still considered to be the supreme power of the 
two, or if their dominions be equally divided, he is supreme below and the light-god 
above—just as it had been from the beginning. And, finally, our theology has made the 
primal shadow of physical phenomena substantial in the mental sphere, and from the 
external darkness of that beginning extracted and internalised the modern devil in the 
end! 

I have now given you a sample of what I meant by our being in the shadow of ideas 
whose original signification we have not understood. 

There is no devil such as Milton saw! And as you must know, much current theology has 
been derived from "Paradise Lost." The hawk that has been flying or flown to keep timid 
souls cowering down to the ground, is not the real bird of prey after all. You may trace 
every motion of it to the end of the string held in the puller's hand! When you go close up 
to it, the devil of theology is not alive. It is a bogus bug-bear, hideous, but harmless as 
that scarecrow in the field, the imposture of which had been found out and despised by a 
small bird who had built its nest, and laid and hatched its eggs in one of the grim 
monster's waistcoat pockets. 

We have an old saying that the devil is an ass! But, in Egypt, the devil as Sut or Satan 
was the ass— the ass that carried the Christ as Horus, the saviour. This was the ass that 
was figuratively kicked out in the Christian sport of "beating the ass," when that pastime 
used to be practised up and down the aisles of Christian churches, and the priest used to 
bray three times, and the people responded like asses! 

The German devil was at one time the red-bearded thunder, the Voice of Darkness! 
which takes us back to Sut-Typhon, who, as Plutarch informs us, was of a reddish 
complexion. It is common for our giants to be endowed with a red streaming comet's tail 
of a beard! Our forefathers, the Norsemen, had little respect and no reverence for the 
devil; and as to hell, why, if you did not get to heaven, then hell was the next best place 
in the other world, if there were but two! 

To be sure, they were badly off for firewood in the Norse hell; and spirits sat shivering in 
the presence of the cold, uncomfortable goddess Hela, who was blue with cold, and it was 
trying to think how they were keeping it up overhead— they who had climbed to the top of 



the tree, Ygdrasil, or secured a seat in Valhalla where the wine-cups flowed and the 
fagots flared, and the merry dancing flames might be reflected on the windows of a 
heaven that was closed against them. For the North-Men knew nothing of a hell of 
everlasting fire. If they had, it might have proved the more attractive place of the two; as 
one of our missionaries once discovered. He had gone out to Greenland to carry the 
Gospel of Good Tidings, and illustrate it with the aid of an eternal fire! But he found 
himself in the wrong latitude as regards the effect of fire. He pictured it in the warmest 
colours, and was surprised at the result! Instead of seeing awe and terror whitening their 
faces, or the tears trickling down them, as he had expected, they were blubbering in quite 
another fashion, for the whale's fat began to run and glisten on their relaxed faces, which 
he saw rounding and brightening into full moons of happiness and jollity; and instead of 
wringing their hands at the prospect he had pictured, they sat as if spiritually warming 
them at this "everlasting bonfire," that was so earnestly warranted never to go out! 
If this were the gospel of good tidings, why had they not heard the glorious truth before? 
Such a welcome and delightful change from the life they had lived in their inclement, 
wintry climate! They had never dreamed of conditions so delightful! So far from 
shunning such a place for ever, as he desired them to do, they were quite ready and 
willing, all of them to go to it at once, and stay there forever. 

The mythical devil was pretty much dying out, until it was revived and sublimated by the 
theology of Luther, Calvin, and Milton. The Romish Church did not deify the devil as the 
Protestants have done. She was better acquainted with the tradition of his creation and the 
earthly nature of his character. It was her cue to keep dark. And the devil of the Middle 
Ages is a poor devil enough without grandeur or terror! Avery fallen intelligence, 
indeed, whom Romish saints can tweak by the nose with red-hot tongs, or the simplest 
countrymen have cunning enough to outwit. Instead of the arch-enemy of God and man, 
majestic in his dark divinity, infernally inspired, as Milton pictures him, he has become a 
grotesque image; the story-teller's most popular figure of fun, on a par with the giants of 
our nursery lore, whom the clever, redoubtable, little Jack, always gets the better of! 
Indeed, both devil and giant as well as the serpent and dragon, had one origin, and the 
orthodox Satan is, after all, the popular monster of mythology. Luther and Calvin doubled 
the devil, and placed one at each end of their scheme of things, the upper or bright God 
being rather the worse devil of the two! 

They put the doctrine of dualism as perplexingly as did the negro preacher who told his 
congregation there were but two roads open to them—one of these led directly to 
destruction, and the other went straight to perdition. "Stop a bit, brudder," cried one of 
the congregation; "hold hard, whilst I get out ob dis!" And there are many people who 
desire to become followers of that negro, and "get out ob dis." 

The Satan of sacerdotal belief, then, is not a being for God or man to kill, but an effigy in 
shoddy that only wants to be ripped up to show you that it is stuffed with sawdust! 
Some people may cry out in an agony of earnestness, as Charles Lamb stammered in his 
fun, "But this is doing away with the devil; d-d-d-don't deprive me of my devil!" "We 
hope for better things. How shall we be able to force people into thinking as we do, and 
frighten them into our fold of faith, for the glory of God, if we have no devil for our 
ferocious shepherd-dog?" And there is no doubt but that, in giving up the orthodox Hell 
and ancient Devil, we are losing one of the most potent motive powers. Our difficulty is 
how to find a substitute for the appeal to selfish fear. The fact remains that the devil is a 
fundamental part of the Christian scheme! No devil, no Redeemer! And those who will 
yell at me, and call me a blasphemer, know that well enough. I sympathise with them. 
They begin to see dimly, what we see clearly, that orthodox Christianity is answerable 
with its life for the literal truth of these stories of the Devil, the Fall of man, and the 
doctrine of a dying deity's atonement. Its life is staked upon the stories being true; and its 
life must pay the forfeit of their being found to be false! And false they are, however their 



defenders may squirm and wriggle, until the backbone of all manhood is changed into 
caoutchouc. 

I can imagine that people who are not sure of their own souls, whether they are lost or are 
not yet found, unless their Hebrew Genesis be true, will feel the world is a rather hollow 
affair without their accustomed devil. It will be like depriving them of half their heaven 
on earth, and the whole of it hereafter, to take away the devil. What on earth, or in 
another place, will they do? those who are so virulent by nature for the Calvinistic 
sulphur, if, after all, there is no brimstone there; and they have passed out of this life with 
their itch for hell red-hot upon them, and there is no Old Scratch to console them after 
all? One would like to believe in just a very little hell for their dear sake! They have so 
devoutly believed in a big one for ours. 

There is devil enough, however—only of another kind than the one we have played with. 
We have talked of the devil long enough; but to a Spiritualist, for instance, the devil 
exists for the first time in some of the facts made known by modern Spiritualism—facts 
which are as much matters of personal experience and constant verification to myself and 
myriads of others as are those of your ordinary life! Think for a moment tentatively of 
there being a personal motive on the other side— a vested interest in our wrong doing- 
degraded spirits present with us in the enjoyment of our most secret sins— the ghosts of 
old dead drunkards haunting the drinker's live warm atmosphere, because in that there 
may pass off into spirit- world some ghostly gust of the old delirious delight, and you may 
get at a real, present, self-interested, manifold, tempting devil that altogether surpasses 
the mythological monster of theology! 

The devil and hell of my creed consist in that natural Nemesis which follows on broken 
laws, and dogs the law breaker, in spite of any belief of his, that his sins, and their 
inevitable results can be so cheaply sponged out, as he has been misled to think, through 
the shedding of innocent blood. Nature knows nothing of the forgiveness for sin. She has 
no rewards or punishments— nothing but causes and consequences. For example, if you 
should contract a certain disease and pass it on to your children, and their children, all the 
alleged forgiveness of God will be of no avail if you cannot forgive yourself. Ours is the 
devil of heredity, working in two worlds at once. Ours is a far more terrible way of 
realising the hereafter, when it is brought home to us in concrete fact, whether in this life 
or the life to come, than any abstract idea of hell or devil can afford. We have to face the 
facts beforehand. No use to whine over them impotently afterwards, when it is too late. 

For example— 

In the olden days when Immortals 

To earth came visible down, 

There went a youth with an Angel 

Through the gate of an Eastern town: 

They passed a dog by the road-side, 

Where dead and rotting it lay, 

And the youth, at the ghastly odour, 

Sickened and turned away. 

He gathered his robes about him; 

And hastily hurried thence: 

But nought annoyed the Angel's 

Clear, pure, immortal sense. 

By came a lady, lip-luscious, 

On delicate, mincing feet: 

All the place grew glad with her presence, 

All the air about her sweet; 

For she came in fragrance floating, 



And her voice most silvery rang; 
And the youth, to embrace her beauty, 
With all his being sprang. 
A sweet, delightsome lady: 
And yet, the Legend saith, 
The Angel, while he passed her, 
Shuddered and held his breath! 

Only think of a fine lady who, in this life, has been wooed and flattered, sumptuously 
clad, and delicately fed; for whom the pure, sweet, air of heaven had to be perfumed as 
incense! and the red rose of health had to fade from many young human faces to blossom 
in the robes she wore, and every sense had been most daintily feasted, and her whole life 
summed up in one long thought of self—think of her finding herself in the next life a 
spiritual leper, a walking pestilence, a personified disease—a sloughing sore of this life 
which the spirit has to get rid of— an excrement of this life's selfishness at which all good 
spirits stop their noses and shudder when she comes near! Don't you think if she realised 
that as a fact in time, it would work more effectually than much preaching? The hell of 
the drunkard, the libidinous, the blood-thirsty, or gold-greedy soul, they tell us, is the 
burning of the old devouring passion which was not quenched by the chills of death. The 
crossing of the cold, dark river even was only as the untasted water to the consuming 
thirst of Tantalus! In support of this, evolution shows the continuity of ourselves, our 
desires, passions, and characters. As the Egyptians said, Whoso is intelligent here will be 
intelligent there! And if we haven't mastered and disciplined our lower passions here, 
they will be masters of us for the time-being hereafter. 

There is no such possibility as death-bed salvation! No such thing as being "jerked to 
Jesus" if you are converted on the scaffold! 

These old passions of ours burn and burn, and will and must burn on till they burn out. 
That, they tell us, is as absolutely necessary a process in the spiritual world as in the case 
of a fever in the physical body, which may be fed frightfully by the impurities of the 
previous life. Moreover, the fever will rage so long as it is supplied with fresh fuel. So 
long as the infatuated spirit does not try to put out the fire, and give the spiritual nature its 
one chance of throwing off the infernal disease, but lusts in imagination after that which 
fed the flame at first, and stirs the fire that kindles with every sigh for the old flesh-pots 
of evil passion still; and will come back to earth to prowl in filthy places, and snuff the ill 
odours of the lowest animal life; seeking in vain for some gust of satisfaction in shadowy 
apparition, as a spirit earth-bound, and self-bound to earth. Such is the teaching 
inculcated by our facts, accept or reject them whosoever may! 

For, where the treasure is there will the heart be also. Think of that, you treasure-seekers 
in the earth, who have found and laid your treasures on the earth; whose treasures 
represent the life you have spent on the earth! You have put the better part of your life 
into them. They are your better part. But you cannot take them away with you! The only 
treasure we can carry away with us must be laid up within. Now, Spiritualism reveals the 
possibility of the spirit's being doomed to haunt this treasure-house of earth until every 
particle of that hoarded wealth has been redistributed and restored to the channels for 
which it was intended by the Maker, and the first stage on its way back may be that the 
riches so carefully gathered and miserly garnered shall be the means of sinking your 
spendthrift son down to the lowest range of spiritual penury. For the Creator whom we 
postulate will not be baulked in carrying out his purposes by any temporary obstructions 
like these, and if you have hindered here you will have to help hereafter, when you do at 
last get into line with Natural Law. 

You have been amused with a dolly devil long enough, whilst inside of you, and outside 
of you, and all round about you, the real devil is living, working with a most infernal 



activity, and playing the very devil with this world of ours. Not an ideal devil, but a legal 
devil, with a purpose and a plan; the devil in reality! 

We have been following a phantom of faith, and the actual veritable devil has been 
dogging us indeed! This is not a Satan of God's making. Not an archangel ruined, who, in 
falling, found a foothold on this earth for the purpose of dragging men down with him to 
that lower deep for which he is bound, but a devil to be recognised by his likeness to 
ourselves! the devil that is our worser self! the devil of our own ignorance, and the 
deification of self—a devil bequeathed to us by the accumulated gains of centuries of 
ignorant selfishness, and selfish ignorance—a devil to be grappled with and wrestled with 
and throttled, overthrown, and overcome, and put out of existence— not only in the 
struggle against all that is evil in the isolated, individual life; our devil has grown too big 
and is too potent for that; but by the energies of all collected and clubbed, and made cooperant 
to destroy the causes of evil whensoever and wheresoever these can be identified, 
whether as Religious, or Political, Moral, or Social. We stand in Heaven's own light and 
cast the evil shadow of Self, and say it is the devil. And then our theologists have the 
blasphemous impudence to make God the author of this dark shadow of ourselves, which 
we shed on his creation; and assume it to be an eclipse from another world of Being. 
No doubt it may be shown that the Operative Power we postulate is responsible for 
certain natural conditions which inevitably result in what we recognise to be evil. Nor 
will he shirk his responsibility in that matter. It was a necessary part and process in the 
human education, in strict accordance with the laws of evolution. But we see more and 
more every day that such evil was good in the making. We may trace many of the healing 
springs of heavenly purity filtering through this dark stratum of earth. Also, we are apt to 
look on things at first sight as evil which we finally find to be blessings in disguise. A 
piercing vision will perceive the deeply underlying intention of good working upward 
through many a superficial appearance of evil. Seen in the light of Evolution, the 
existence of evil is no longer a mythological mystery to be made the most of by pious 
ignoramuses for preaching purposes, but a necessary concomitant of development; one of 
the conditions by means of which we grow into conscious human beings to attain the 
higher life. 

Indeed, whether there be a God or not, it was impossible to discuss the matter 
intelligently until the doctrine of Creation, by the slow processes of evolution, had been 
taken into account. 

This shows us that the evil for which Nature is responsible, is a means of evolving in us 
the very consciousness of good. The moment we recognise evil, and have acquired the 
consciousness of its existence, the responsibility for its existence becomes ours. Here is a 
problem set for us to solve by way of education. Here is a foe to fight to the death, 
whether as a misguided passion in the individual, or a disease in the life of a nation. Here 
is something to be turned into good— a devil to be converted. The moment man sees so 
far, he must accept the responsibility for the continued existence of the evil, and war 
against it as he would if clearing any other jungle from poisonous reptiles. Ours is not a 
doll to dandle, and claim divine parentage for, but a misbegotten devil of ignorance, and a 
miscarriage of humanity in the past. 

We see that life comes into visible being according to conditions. Where these are 
unprepared and not humanised, the life takes the lowest forms, those of reptiles and 
weeds, poisonous plants, thorns, thistles, and briars, forms inimical to man, and therefore 
considered to be evil. Then man comes to cultivate and modify, and turn the evil into 
good. The whole world of natural evil has to acknowledge its master. Let me give you an 
illustration. Pain, for example, is a consequence of imperfect conditions. It is the signal of 
the sentinel that warns us of the enemy. And how those faithful sentinels stand in the 
outworks of the body, to guard the more vital parts from approaching danger. It is 
necessary to warn us, or we should do most foolish things, as a child might, but for this 



warning of pain, thrust his hand in the fire and have it consumed! The soul's health is 
continually protected by this warning sentinel of pain, mental and corporeal. Pain is 
necessary, then, to the development of consciousness, and the perfecting of conditions. It 
is the reminder that there is something wrong; therefore something to be remedied. It is a 
part of the process in our education. Also, the loftiest pleasures of our spiritual life 
continually flower from a rootage in the deepest pain. I am not here to preach a gospel of 
the blessedness of suffering for the poor and needy—the victims of this world's laws. But 
suffering, as I read the Book of Life, is an incentive to effort; and the greatest pressure 
from without will sometimes evolve the strongest character from within, by evoking the 
greater force of effort. As Shakespeare points out, the flowers of March are not so fine as 
the flowers of June, but the finest flower of March is finer than the finest flower of June! 
It has overcome more opposition, and turned it to account. Perhaps in consequence of the 
pressure, it has established a nearer relationship at root to the source of life. Pain is but a 
passing necessity, for, as it is the result of imperfect conditions, it follows that pain itself 
must pass away as those conditions are perfected—and we are here to improve and perfect 
them. God does not destroy the devil of pain right off, by working a miracle at a 
moment's notice! For God is not that Automaton of the sects— that weather-cock atop of 
creation which they suppose will veer round at every breath of selfish prayer. You are 
called upon to ascertain what is the law of the case, who is the law-breaker, and how is 
the law to be kept. You must look out for natural consequences, and effects that follow 
causes, not for rewards and punishments! 

You know that a little bile in the blood may cause great mental distress! But it is perfectly 
absurd to ask God to save you from these blacks in your eyes and blue devils in your 
brain. You must look to your liver, and obey the laws of health. Eschew tobacco and take 
less whisky, or coffee, as the case may be. God works no immediate miracle in response 
to your offer of a tempting opportunity! He intends man to get rid of evil as he grows 
enlightened enough to deal more wisely with our human conditions in the process of— 
what? Of becoming manlier and womanlier. 

Our Science grasps with its transforming hand; 
Makes real half the tales of fairy land; 
It turns the deathliest fetor to perfume; 
It gives decay new life and rosy bloom; 
It changes filthy rags to virgin white, 
Makes pure in spirit what was foul to sight. 

We burn the darkness and the density out of earthly matter, and transfigure it into glass, 
which we can see through. We are here to apply a similar process of annealing to our 
dense, unexcavated, earthy humanity, so that the light from heaven may shine through it 
purely! We are here to try and clear away these visible causes of obstruction which have 
been bequeathed to us by ages on ages of horrible ignorance, and not look forward 
helplessly to their being burned out of human souls by an eternity of hell-fire, or, 
backwards, for a salvation supposed to have taken place some eighteen centuries ago, but 
which is no nearer now than it ever was, on the terms set forth by orthodox teachings. 
It was impossible to see anything clearly, or get any glimpse of justice above or below, in 
heaven, or earth, or hell, under the old creed, which proclaims that pain and suffering 
constitute the curse wherewith God has unjustly afflicted all for the sin of one, instead of 
the beneficent, though stern, angel of his presence and bearer of his blessing: that it was 
an eternal decree, to be executed through all eternity, instead of an awakener in time, that 
calls to action now and at once, for the changing of the present conditions in which 
Humanity crawls, as it were, upon all fours, or hobbles on crutches, as if we were born 
mental cripples. 



We all know there is an awful deal of suffering in the world that cannot be considered as 
a mere individual question! —sufferings that we do not individually cause, and are not 
personally responsible for—sufferings bequeathed to us as individuals and as members of 
the State; for we have to bear the accumulated burdens of centuries on centuries of 
ignorance, or, worse still, of wilful crime, and, worst of all, of wrong made sacred by 
religious sanction, and supported by Law and the Press. And the burden of the many 
crushes the individual to the earth; and the God of Justice appears to be blind to the case- 
makes no rush to the rescue, even when we suffer for the sins of others. Be sure even 
these can be turned to eternal account. But, he has this lesson to convey to the world— 
Humanity is one. And the power that is has instituted certain laws— laws that operate for 
the species rather than the individual, an important distinction to be made in any 
interpretation of nature; laws that deal with the species as one in spite of our manifold 
diversities and our deified doctrine of every-one-on-his-own-hook-ism. He does not put 
forth his hand to take you off your hook when it happens to run into you particularly 
sharp, flesh or soul, and makes you supplicate or swear. Establish what private 
relationship you can with your Maker, and derive what spiritual succour you may whilst 
bearing the burden, or writhing on the iron that enters you, the laws that do deal with 
humanity in the aggregate, and operate for the good of the species, will go grinding on 
with their larger revolutions that subserve eternal interests whilst crushing terribly many 
smaller claims of individual life For, mark this, the Eternal intends to show us that 
humanity is one, and the family are more than the individual member, the nation is more 
than the family, and the human race is more than the nation. And if we do not accept the 
revelation lovingly, do not take to the fact kindly, why then 'tis flashed upon us terribly, 
by lightning of hell, if we will not have it by light of heaven, and the poor neglected scum 
and canaille of the nations rise up mighty in the strength of disease, and prove the 
oneness of humanity by killing you with the same infection. 
It has recently been shown how the poor of London do not live, but fester in the 
pestilential hovels called their homes. To get into these you have to visit courts which the 
sun never penetrates, which are never visited by a breath of fresh air, and which never 
know the virtues of a drop of cleansing water. Immorality is but the natural outcome of 
such a devil's spawning-ground. The poverty of many who strive to live honestly is 
appalling. 

And this disclosure is made with the customary moan that such people attend neither 
church nor chapel, as if that were the panacea. 

I should not wonder if these revelations result in the building of more churches and 
chapels, and the consecration of at least one or two more bishops. 
The Bishop of Bedford said the other day— "It was highly necessary that in these times 
when the poor have so little earthly enjoyment, the joys of heaven should be made known 
to them." It is not possible to caricature an utterance so grotesque as that. 
How appallingly unjust it seems that the victims of this world's laws should be handed 
over as ready-made victims of Nature's laws— that the most helpless poor should be the 
favourite thriving ground for tape-worms— just because they are in such a poverty. This is 
hard, but so it is, and so it will and must be till the lesson is learned and applied— that the 
human family is one, and all are bound up together by certain laws willy-nilly; that we 
are our brother's keeper for all our Cain-like questionings of the fact. We cannot shirk our 
responsibility; and you are not allowed to get out of the grip of the violated law of the 
whole, on any pretence of individuality or limited liability. It is we who create the fevers 
to feed on the poor, when we allow others to get rich by permitting the filth and the 
poisoned air and water that are sent into the world sparkling with purity; when we allow 
the rights of property to over-ride the interests of humanity. It is we who breed the 
diseases and literally invent the hungry, hundred-mouthed tape-worms that get their 
living out of poverty-stricken blood and hungry stomachs, churning the slime of gnawing 



emptiness, because we created, or continue, the laws that doom the many to poverty and 
its parasites of prey. 

Providence—that is a very comprehensive name — providence does not create poverty. 
The cupola of heaven overhead is like the inverted horn of everlasting plenty, pouring 
down its blessings of abundance in sunshine and shower, in air and dew, in ripening fire 
and purifying frost, and the harvests never fail the world over. All round, all ways, there 
is plenty for all—if not in one country, there is in another. There is no failure on the part 
of Providence, the Creator of plenty. 

This neglected garden of our world, which has in it every element of a paradise, if rightly 
planted and properly tended, has been left to run to weeds of sin and ignorance and crime, 
in the most wasteful way. Heavens of spirit-worlds around us are for ever sowing the 
divine seed-germs broad-cast over our earth, and they have to scatter a harvest in order 
that we may grow a single grain, because the human conditions are so un-receptive, the 
fields are so neglected, the soil so unprepared to receive their bounty! The heavens 
around us are ever ready to pour out blessings in a larger measure than we are to make a 
lap for receiving them. All they ask are the conditions under which we may receive most 
abundantly. 

We are the manufacturers of misery! We have sedulously cultivated or permitted all 
manner of foul conditions, and then in the midst of some calamity, for which we are 
criminally responsible, that comes home to all, the praying machine of the State is set 
rotating with a furious forty-thousand-parson-power, and God is implored to stay his 
hand or work a miracle forthwith on behalf of us poor human worms, who ask the 
Creator to take particular notice of these our penitential writhings at his feet! The Bishop 
of Truro said recently that we are approaching a period of pain and peril, and the situation 
calls for strong words and strong prayers. You must cry aloud or the Lord won't hear you! 
Standing face to face with certain facts, the result of things as they are, and have been, the 
atheists exclaim,— "There is no God! If there were an omnipotent God such things would 
not be tolerated by him! " But by an "omnipotent God," is meant a god with power to 
change, at a moment's notice, all that is fixed for ever. Let me assure our free-thought 
friends, that Evolution necessitates a new idea altogether of the operative power! It 
abolishes the incompetent personal Creator of the Hebrew Genesis! But, in presence of 
evolution, it is useless to demand that, if there be a God, it shall prove itself to be the 
deity of the orthodox, which, as I said before, is a sort of eternal weather-cock on the 
summit of creation, that may be made to veer round as it is blown about by every breath 
of selfish human prayer, if people collect together in sufficient numbers to blow it round! 
A vain idea of divinity whosoever entertains it. The deity who is belaboured so 
unmercifully, and, as I think, so cheaply, by Robert Ingersol, is the god of the nonevolutionary 
theory of creation, the impossible monster of the past. 

"Did God govern America when it had four millions of slaves?" asks Ingersol. Well, why 
not? in accordance with the Laws of Evolution, seeing that slavery has come to an end! If 
he had put an end to it, ab extra, Americans could not have had the credit of doing the 
work, and might never have evolved the consciousness that slavery was criminal. 
God did not put an end to slavery as an outside Governor of Men; but who shall say that 
the power, the will, the perception, the affection, or whatsoever we can express by 
analogy with the human— that is called God— was not operant, and, therefore, governing, 
within the souls of the men who rose up foremost in revolt against the accursed wrong, 
and called upon their fellows to cast it out? Possibly the existence of God, then, does not 
depend upon the particular visible way of working that may be so easily indicated! 
Slavery only existed pro tern, to come to an end, and, therefore, was consistent, like other 
educational forms of evil, with the divine government, according to the laws of evolution. 
The argument of the non-theist is continually directed and limited to the false premises 
and inadequate conclusions of the orthodox, which it is as easy and cheap to pulverise as 



it is to pummel a sack of straw! We can know nothing of an omnipotent God who plays 
fast and loose with the conditions of law! Were it so, all human foothold and trust in the 
stability of the universe would be gone. Education would be impossible. We are first 
taught by means of the fixed facts, in order that we may found on solid earth, not on the 
ever-shifting sands—with prayers for God to catch them now and again, and keep them 
quiet, for God's sake! I rather think it would be more just to reply, there is not sufficient 
manhood and intelligence in you to put an end to the evils you deplore! "I, God! gave the 
earth for all; " and you permit the initial iniquity of absolute private property in land, 
whereby one man may clutch a county all to himself, and a few may claim a country. 
You allow the rights of property to over-rule and over-ride the interests of humanity! 
If your national property is doubling every thirty years, so is the national pauperism! You 
allow the "one" to possess the soil, and the thousands to be driven off and exported as 
refuse, in order that game may multiply, and the human parasites of earth may pursue 
their savage sport! I gave the land for all; to be the property and grazing ground of each 
living generation brought to birth; and you allow it to be locked up by the dead hand of 
the past, for the benefit of the few! These few framed the laws that inevitably doom the 
many, sooner or later, to poverty, to man-made sufferings, to diseases and miseries 
innumerable, all of which get mixed up with a supposed inscrutable origin of evil and 
other grotesque and fallacious views, endorsed and inculcated by the current theology for 
the benefit of parsons and patrons, which are only fit to be made a mock of, and to be 
laughed into oblivion! 

And here, let me say, that whilst recognising the inexorableness of the natural law in 
certain spheres of operation, where it works like the bound Samson of blind force for the 
good of the species, I find that Spiritualism introduces a consciousness akin, and, at least, 
equal, to the human, into the working of law in a realm beyond the immediately visible. It 
shows the existence of subtler forces and modes of law for dealing with man the 
individual, and the culminating consciousness of creation. When the mind of man had 
been evolved on this earth, remember, a new factor was introduced amongst the natural 
forces—one that was destined to greatly modify and counteract them; fetter the fire, and 
ride the ocean waves; guide the lightning, and train it to carry messages; bridge the 
planetary spaces, and outstrip Time itself. In like manner, the knowledge of an existence 
beyond the visible present— no matter by what means— and of intelligence operating in 
hidden and extraordinary ways, introduces a new factor among the forces now to be 
reckoned with as mental modifiers in certain domains of law. The unseen world can no 
longer be the same when we learn that Intelligence is there; no more than this world 
could remain the same after the advent of man! And when we can identify the 
consciousness there as being akin to the human here, we know all that is necessary for 
putting a conscience into the previously inexorable law, and an eye into the image of 
blind force. Here we get a margin that would take a long while to fill in with possible 
annotations. Man is no longer alone in the universe! There are other intelligences, 
affections, powers of will and work, beside his; and in relation to him this just makes all 
the difference in the manifestation and interpretation of the law that is blind and 
inexorable in its lower range. We begin to distinguish! Here are the means for a possible 
response to invocation, and to the need of mental help! 

The now demonstrated fact of Thought- Transference, which was familiar enough before, 
in common with other kindred phenomena, to many of us, opens up a vista of immortal 
possibility in the mode of mental manifestation, and in the modification of supposed 
hard-and-fast, or immutable, law, in relation to life in its higher phases! 
It seems to me that this fact alone turns the ground of mere materialism into a kind of 
Goodwin Sands! We extend this thought-transference upwards or round us by means of 
living telegraphic mental lines! The operators on which at one end can work, and only 
work according to the conditions at the other end. At present I do not perceive, and 



cannot pretend to know, when and where we can touch Conscious Source itself along 
these lines. Who does know anything of God, in the domain of things? or who has any 
right to pretend to know, or to be paid a salary for pretending to know, anything of God 
personally, or a personal God? To me the question as to the personality of God is 
altogether premature. I can wait for a few future lifetimes to find out God. 
In a sense it may be "there is no God yet, but there's one coming! " and you will find the 
saying a profound one if you think it over for a month. We ourselves, of the race of man, 
are only in the condition of becoming (let us cultivate a becoming modesty!); and such is 
the human apprehension of the cause of becoming. The eye, as Goethe has said, can only 
see what it brings with it the power of seeing; and so, in a sense, a God is not yet, but one 
is coming. The deity hitherto set up for worship is more or less an effigy of the God of 
primitive or savage man. If that be a true likeness, why, then, men ought not to become 
Atheists merely—they ought not to marry and propagate, but commit suicide forthwith! It 
is such an outrage on all human feeling, this primitive portraiture of Eternal power, that 
the moral revolt is certain, and the mental result is atheism. I assert that non-theism is 
sometimes, and in some natures, the necessary revolt of the most inner consciousness 
against the abortion called God! They shut their eyes altogether to get rid of a 
representation so unsightly and unworthy; and better is such blindness than much false 
seeing. I say it is the real Presence operating within that is at war with this hideous sham 
set up for worship without. I seldom use the name of God myself in speech or writing 
now, it has been so long taken in vain—so profaned by the orthodox blasphemers. It has 
been so degraded as a brand and hall-mark, made use of to warrant the counterfeit wares 
that are passed off upon the ignorant and unsuspecting, who think them genuine so long 
as they are stamped with that name, as to have become quite discredited. 
For myself, I have come to apprehend a Conscious Source of all, working outwardly from 
the core of things, by means of what we term matter, and understand as the Laws of 
Evolution. A Conscious Source of all! I cannot state that consciousness in words, but it 
appears to me that this is the work of phenomena which do actually state it in the process 
of appealing to, or becoming, the Consciousness in us. But I am utterly unable to 
personify this Power! Also, I find the essence of the whole matter is sacred to privacy. 
The more intuition, the less blabbing— the more reverence, the more reticence. The facts 
of an abnormal or extraordinary nature that came under my own cognisance during many 
years of my life, which were continually occurring and verified, proved to me that Mind 
exists and operates out of sight! 

By degrees these facts peopled the unknown void with life and intelligent beings; that 
finally gave one bit of foothold on the very first step of a ladder which will stand up for 
the first time when one tries to prop it against the sky! That one step bridges the dark void 
of death for me. I don't trouble myself, for myself, about the other world at all— that's all 
right, if we are! It is for this world people need to be helped. Life is not worth living if we 
are not doing something towards helping on the work of this world. It is only in helping 
others that we can truly help ourselves. And we have reason to think that myriads of 
those who have already left this life with false hopes of salvation are only too glad to help 
themselves by coming back and helping us to carry on the work of this world. 
It is only when we pass out of the domain of self, that the unseen helpers can steal in 
upon us, and help us as Agents for those who are Agents for others, and so on and on, 
until the whole vast universe is filled and quick with modes and motions, and forms of 
being all athrob with subtly-related life; all radiating from central source to uttermost 
limit; all unified in one eternal consciousness, in which the soul of man, full statured and 
full-summed, may possibly become conscious that it touches God at last, as a presence, a 
power, a principle, and may then be made aware that it did so unconsciously from the 
first. 
Our orthodox teachers in the present are responsible for playing into the hands or claws 



of the devil that was created for them in the past. They are the consecrators of all the 
ignorance, robbery, and wrong! In England the sinister army of forty thousand men in 
masks, as it has been truly termed, is paid from the national revenue to act the part of a 
secret Sunday police! Their chief representatives are the obstructives of sane and humane 
legislation to-day as ever. A man can't marry his wife's sister because of them. 
At the debate on the Pigeon Bill in the House of Lords, some time since, not a single 
bishop was found to lift up his voice on behalf of the poor dumb and miserably-murdered 
doves. Not a man was to be found behind any one of the aprons! Every bishop present in 
the House voted against opening the Museums and Picture Galleries on Sunday! They 
say, in effect, If you won't come to church, d~n you! you shan't go anywhere else, if we 
can help it! They want to stand just where they have always stood, at the end of the long 
dark passage through which mankind slowly emerges out of darkness into day—in the 
very entrance of the light, to shut out the face of heaven itself from those who are groping 
their way through the gloom, and bid them in God's name to go back and religiously keep 
to the obscurity of the cave, if they would be saved! 

Each Sunday they trail the red herring across the scent of their followers, so that their 
attention may be drawn off from this world and all the wrongs we are sent here to 
remedy. They promise that those who remain sufficiently poor and wormlike in spirit 
during this life, shall rise erect from the grublike condition in death, full-fledged, to soar 
as winged angels in the next life. They have exalted the lot of Lazarus as a Scriptural 
Ideal for the most needy and miserable to live up to, as if the cowering outcast and 
diseased starveling of earth were the proper model man for the heavens. They keep us the 
lying farce of insisting that man is a fallen creature, and persist in preaching their doctrine 
of his degradation and damnation in order that people may go to them to be saved—and 
pay well for it. 

The Secularist asserts that the orthodox cult and theology are a hopeless failure for this 
world, and as a Spiritualist I affirm that they are also a fraud for the other. 
False beliefs are, and forever must be, opposed to all real and true doing. And these false 
beliefs have from the beginning been bitterly opposed to every truth revealed by science; 
and every advance made for humanity has had to be made in spite of them. Moreover, 
this doctrine they teach, of saving yourselves and "devil take the hindmost," is most 
miserably degrading to any true sense of real manhood or womanhood. He wouldn't be 
much of a hero who in the midst of the battle took it into his head that the first duty of 
man is to get himself saved! 

They get up a horrible hullabaloo in the rear, as if all hell were let loose after you, on 
purpose to frighten the blind and foolish, and make them rush through the one door open 
in front of those who are fleeing from the wrath to come, at which they take tax and toll. 
But there is no hell, there is no devil, close after the hindmost of those who are furiously 
fleeing from the avengers of the "fall of man." Moreover, it's of no use rushing. However 
fast you go you carry your own heaven or hell inside of you, whether for this life or any 
other. All this is a bogus business, with the mythical devil for bogey. The world is not yet 
on fire with the final conflagration, nor can they set it on fire with the painted flames of a 
pictorial hell. A little girl was once asked what she must first do to be saved; and the 
innocent replied, "Get lost." Moreover, before we join in the stampede of self-salvation at 
the call of those who cry "fire" when the theatre is crammed, let us be sure that we have 
grown a soul that is worth saving. If we had, I doubt whether we should manifest such a 
consuming anxiety of utter selfishness, or be in such an infernal hurry to get it saved 
anyhow. Those who are truly desirous of saving or helping others, seldom trouble much 
about their own souls. Theirs is the burden of a nobler care. Theirs is a loftier inquietude 
than any sense of self can ever give. They lose all such unworthy fears for themselves in 
the thought of others. They are like that grand captain of the "Northfleet," of whom I 
proudly wrote some years ago— 



"Others he saved. He saved the name 
Unsullied, that he gave his wife, 
And, dying with so pure an aim, 
He had no need to save his life." 

I also hold their other cowardly doctrine, that of vicarious sacrifice, to be the real, if 
indirect, cause of Vivisection. It would have been impossible for a nation of animal 
lovers like the English to tolerate the vivisection of the dog, for example, man's first 
friend in the wilderness of the early world, his ally in the work of civilisation, unless the 
motor nerve and conscience of the race had been paralysed by the curare of vicarious 
suffering. The beastly cruelties of its practitioners, which are flaunted in our faces with 
intent to terrorise the conscience of others, could not have been permitted by men who 
had not been indoctrinated by the worship of a vivisecting deity, whose victim was his 
own son! And these myriads of slowly murdered dogs and rabbits, cats and frogs, cannot 
have the consolation of knowing that vivisection is salvation, and they are saviours of the 
human race from the consequences of its own crimes against nature, and sins against self! 
It is impossible to establish the throne of Eternal Justice by the violation of all that is 
human, as is fruitlessly attempted on this ground of the orthodox Creed. It is impossible 
for you to save or serve humanity by sacrificing all that constitutes the essence of 
humanity, as is done in this pourtrayal of a vivisecting deity, who is the responsible 
operator, with his own son for suffering victim. And this victim of vicarious punishment 
is held forth as a lure to draw humanity toward a father in heaven of such a nature as that! 
We may depend upon it that this preaching of what is called Christianity, to get a Sunday 
sensation, or solace out of it—this plunging of the theological poker red-hot into your 
seventh-day dose of spiritual flip to give it a zest—this using of hell-fire as a persuader, 
after the manner of the furnace heated beneath the turkeys, which persuaded the poor 
things to dance to music played in quick time— this weekly whipping of the devil round 
the stump is, as the Americans say, pretty well played out; there is nothing new to be 
said. Suppose we go to work and try to do something, instead of making ourselves 
miserable on Sunday, doing nothing but putting ourselves through all the postures and 
impostures of the orthodox Sabbatical fashion? In future, mankind will not herd together, 
like terror-stricken cattle in a thunder-storm, to deprecate the wrath of their God, and 
offer him praise and presents by way of propitiation, and as a bribe for him not to lose his 
temper! Good God! What an idea of a God! It is precisely the elemental god of 
Browning's Caliban, and of the primitive savage! In future, I say, men will not look upon 
it as a sacred duty to herd together, on purpose to praise and glorify their God one day in 
seven with their psalm of conceit: 

"Let all Creation hold its tongue, 
While I uplift my Sunday song;" 

lest, being a jealous God, he should blight their harvest, or peradventure burst the boiler 
of the Excursion Train. Nor will men form leagues, religious or otherwise, on purpose to 
think alike and make all other people think the same. They cannot think alike if they are 
ever to grow. The lower the type the greater the likeness! The loftier the development the 
larger the diversity! That is the Natural law. We may co-operate to work, but not to think 
alike. That could never be free-thinking. Nor will mankind henceforth allow their arms to 
be paralysed for action by being fixed or "bailed up" in the posture of prayer. We say,— It 
is a farce, a pitiful one, not a laughable one, for you to pray for God to work a miracle for 
the kingdom of heaven to come, when you are doing all you can, all your lives, to prevent 
its coming, or doing nothing to hasten its coming. It is the sheerest mockery of God and 



man! You were sent here to create the kingdom, to work it out by living that law of love 
proclaimed as laying down the life in love for others, and the very reason why the 
kingdom does not come, and cannot come, is because you stand in the way of its coming. 
And you, and all who think and act as you do, praying for the better day to come, must be 
swept out of the way in order that it may come. 

Get up from your knees and work for it! Take your weapon in hand and fight for it! Turn 
fiercely on the devil that dogs our own footsteps, and rescue those that fall by the way 
and succumb to the powers that make for evil. Turn on the devil—not theoretically, but 
practically, having ascertained the work that needs to be done. Turn on the devil, not 
singly, but associated together for doing, instead of believing and talking and praying for 
God to do! What the Eternal Worker asks of us, as I apprehend the whole matter, is that 
we shall become conscious co-workers with him in carrying out the divine purposes in 
proportion as we can make them out! He does not want us to be fear-bound and devildriven 
slaves! Not beasts in blinkers, not laggers behind, forever probed by the goad of 
sheer and sharp necessity; not blind obeyers of his sternest laws that go grinding on 
willy-nilly, hauling and hurling us along with them in their incessant, vast revolution! but 
seers of his work, intelligent interpreters of his will, and sharers in his life and love. 
In conclusion. There is no origin of evil in the moral domain that is not derivable from 
ignorance. "The wickedness of a soul," said Hermes, "is its ignorance;" and there is no 
devil in the moral domain except in the devilish determination to do the wrong ox permit 
the wrong to be done, after we have evolved the consciousness that recognises the right! 
The reason then why God does not kill the devil is because man has unconsciously 
created or permitted all that is the devil finally; and here or hereafter he has to 
consciously destroy his own work, and fight himself free from the errors of his own 
ignorance. Not man the individual merely, but man as part of the whole family of 
universal humanity. Not man as mortal simply, but as an immortal, standing up shoulder 
to shoulder, and marching onward step by step and side by side with those who are our 
elders in immortality, and who still unite with us, and lend a hand to effect in time the not 
altogether inscrutable, but slowly-unfolding, purposes of the Eternal. 



LUNIOL ATRY, ANCIENT AND MODERN 

For thirty years past Professor Max Miiller has been teaching in his books and lectures, in 
the Times, Saturday Review, and various magazines, from the platform of the Royal 
Institution, the pulpit of Westminster Abbey, and his chair at Oxford, that Mythology is a 
disease of language, and that the ancient symbolism was a result of something like a 
primitive mental aberration. 

"We know," says Renouf, echoing Max Miiller, in his Hibbert lectures, "We know that 
mythology is the disease which springs up at a peculiar stage of human culture." Such is 
the shallow explanation of the non-evolutionists, and such explanations are still accepted 
by the British public, that gets its thinking done for it by proxy. Professor Max Miiller, 
Cox, Gubernatis and other propounders of the Solar Mythos have portrayed the primitive 
myth-maker for us as a sort of Germanised-Hindu metaphysician, projecting his own 
shadow on a mental mist, and talking ingeniously concerning smoke, or, at least, cloud; 
the sky overhead becoming like the dome of dreamland, scribbled over with the imagery 
of aboriginal nightmares! They conceive the early man in their own likeness, and look 
upon him as perversely prone to self-mystification, or, as Fontenelle has it, "subject to 
beholding things that are not there! " They have misrepresented primitive or archaic man 
as having been idiotically misled from the first by an active but untutored imagination 
into believing all sorts of fallacies, which were directly and constantly contradicted by his 
own daily experience; a fool of fancy in the midst of those grim realities that were 
grinding his experience into him, like the grinding icebergs making their imprints upon 
the rocks submerged beneath the sea. It remains to be said, and will one day be 
acknowledged, that these accepted teachers have been no nearer to the beginnings of 
mythology and language than Burn's poet Willie had been near to Pegasus. My reply is, 
'Tis but a dream of the metaphysical theorist that mythology was a disease of language, 
or anything else except his own brain. The origin and meaning of mythology have been 
missed altogether by these solarites and weather-mongers! Mythology was a primitive 
mode ofthinging the early thought. It was founded on natural facts, and is still verifiable 
in phenomena. There is nothing insane, nothing irrational in it, when considered in the 
light of evolution, and when its mode of expression by sign-language is thoroughly 
understood. The insanity lies in mistaking it for human history or Divine Revelation. 
Mythology is the repository of man's most ancient science, and what concerns us chiefly 
is this—when truly interpreted once more it is destined to be the death of those false 
theologies to which it has unwittingly given birth! 

In modern phraseology a statement is sometimes said to be mythical in proportion to its 
being untrue; but the ancient mythology was not a system or mode of falsifying in that 
sense. Its fables were the means of conveying facts; they were neither forgeries nor 
fictions. Nor did mythology originate in any intentional double-dealing whatever, 
although it did assume an aspect of duality when direct expression in words had 
succeeded the primitive mode of representation by means of things as signs and symbols. 
For example, when the Egyptians pourtrayed the moon as a Cat, they were not ignorant 
enough to suppose that the moon was a cat; nor did their wandering fancies see any 
likeness in the moon to a cat; nor was a cat-myth any mere expansion of verbal 
metaphor; nor had they any intention of making puzzles or riddles to mislead others by 
means of such enigmatical sign-language, at a time when they could not help themselves, 
having no choice in the matter. They had observed the simple fact that the cat saw in the 
dark, and that her eyes became full-orbed and grew most luminous by night. The moon 
was the seer by night in heaven, and the cat was its equivalent on the earth; and so the 



familiar cat was adopted as a representative, a natural sign, a living pictograph of the 
lunar orb! Where we should make a comparison, and say the moon saw in the dark like a 
cat, or the cat saw like the moon by night, they identified the one with the other (a mode 
of metaphor which still characterises the great style in poetry), and said the cat up there 
can see by night. And so it followed that the sun which saw down in the under-world at 
night, could also be called the cat, as it was, because it also saw in the dark. The name of 
the cat in Egyptian is mau, which denotes the seer, from man, to see. One writer on 
mythology asserts that the Egyptians "imagined a great cat behind the sun, which is the 
pupil of the cat's eye." But this imagining is all modern. It is the Miillerite stock in trade! 
The moon as cat was the eye of the sun, because it reflected the solar light, and because 
the eye gives back the image in its mirror. In the form of the Goddess Pasht the cat keeps 
watch for the sun, with her paw holding down and bruising the head of the serpent of 
darkness, called his eternal enemy! The cat was the eye of night in the same symbolical 
sense that our daisy, which opens and shuts with the rising and setting of the sun, is 
called the eye of day. Moreover, the cat saw the sun, had it in its eye by night, when it 
was otherwise unseen by men. We might say the moon mirrored the solar light, because 
we have looking glasses. With them the cat's eye was the mirror. 
The hare was another type of the eye that opened in heaven and saw in the dark. 
Consequently, we find the hare in the moon is a myth that gave birth to a common and 
wide-spread superstition. In later times the symbol is literalized, and it is supposed that 
primitive men were always on the look-out for likenesses, like a youthful poet in search 
of comparisons, and that they saw some resemblance to the form of a hare in the dark 
shadows of the lunar orb. Whereas in mythology things are not what they seem to 
anybody; that would lead to no consensus of agreement, nor establish any science of 
knowledge. A learned man once remarked to me on the strange fact that the ancients 
should have selected the least observable of all the planets, Mercury, to make so must of, 
as the messenger. He was entirely ignorant of the fact that mythology includes a system 
of time-keeping, and that Mercury was made the planetary messenger (in addition to his 
lunar character), because his revolution round the sun is performed in the shortest space 
of planetary time. In like manner, Max Miiller will tell you that the moon was called by 
the name of Sasnka in Sanskrit, from sasa, the hare, because the common people in India 
think the black marks in the moon look like a hare! But this is mere fool's work or child's 
play with the surface appearance of things which has little or no relation to true myth or 
ancient symbolism; and all such interpretation is entirely misleading! Egypt, as I contend, 
has left us the means of determining the original nature and significance of these types. 
When the Egyptians would denote an opening, says Hor- Apollo, they delineate a hare, 
because this animal always has its eyes open. The name of the hare in Egyptian is Un, 
which signifies open, to open, the opener, especially connected with periodicity, as the 
word also means the hour. This will explain how the wide, open-eyed hare became a type 
of the moon, which opens with its new light once a month, as the hare in heaven. The 
hare is the hieroglyphic sign of the opener, which can be variously applied to the 
phenomena of opening; to the sun as well as the moon. The hare is an especial emblem of 
the god Osiris in the character of Un-Nefer, the good opener; in later phrase, the good 
revealer! It is as the seer that both hare and cat are associated with the witch as types of 
abnormal seership. The hare also denoted the opening time, as the period of pubescence, 
when it was lawful for the sexes to come together. Hence it was the type of periodicity 
and legality in the human phase! For this reason, the youths among the Namaqua 
Hottentots are (or were) not allowed to eat the hare. With the Chinese the rabbit takes the 
place of the hare as a lunar type. Its period of gestation being thirty days, that would 
make it an appropriate representative of the lunation, of opening anew, and of re-birth. 
The Selish Indians have a myth of the frog in the moon. They tell how the wolf, in love 
with the frog, was pursuing her by night, when she leaped into the moon, and escaped. 



Amongst the superstitions of our English folk-lore, we also have one respecting the frog 
or toad, that is supposed to be visible in the moon. Now it can be shown how the frog got 
deposited there; but only as a type, not in reality, nor as a mere appearance. The frog is a 
natural transformer from the tadpole phase in the water to the four-legged stage on land! 
The moon likewise transforms, and the metamorphosis of the lunar orb could be typified 
by the change in the frog, and so the frog as picture-object, natural type and living 
demonstrator for the moon, ultimately became the frog in the moon. The moon rose up 
monthly from the celestial waters, renewed like the frog, and as the horned one grew fullorbed 
it might be thought of as losing the tail of its tad-pole condition. The frog was 
figured as the head of the Egyptian goddess Hekat (= Greek Hecate), the consort of 
Khnef, one of whose titles is the "king of frogs." Hekat being a lunar goddess and Khnef 
a solar god, this title would denote that he was lord of the numerous transformations of 
light in the moon, described as being the father, and she as the mother, of frogs, because 
the frog was the typical transformer, as representative of the moon. The Chinese have a 
three-legged frog in the moon that was an ancient beauty, named Chang Ngo, who lives 
there because she once drank the amrita of immortality. I have elsewhere suggested that 
the original Phryne of Greece was a form of the frog-goddess who transformed! The 
name of Phryne denotes the frog; and in the most famous statue of her, carved by 
Apelles, she was pourtrayed as Venus transfiguring from the foam, as did the froggoddess 
Hekat, of Egypt, who was the frog in the moon. Only be reading these types, 
which preceded letters, can we at all understand the thought and intention of the primitive 
thingers or thinkers. 

Another example: the dung-beetle in Egypt was a type of Khepr-Ptah, the creator by 
transformation, who is said to have been begotten by his own becoming, and to have been 
born without a mother, through repetition of himself. Khep, the root of the name, 
signifies to transform. External nature was the scene of eternal transformation and neverending 
metamorphosis. And it had been observed that Khepr, the beetle, was likewise a 
transformer, inasmuch as it laid its eggs in dung found on the banks of the Nile, rolled it 
up into a ball, and buried itself deep in the dry sand along with its seed, where, qua 
beetle, it transformed, the old beetle into the young one, and so continued as the same 
beetle by transformation! Thus the beetle served to typify that being or existence which 
could not be expressed, but which was seen to continue forever by self-repetition in 
phenomenal manifestation. They knew nothing of beginning, and did not pretend to 
know, but only of becoming, and of repetition or "renewal coming of itself." So the beetle 
was adopted as a type of transformation, whether of the old moon into the new one, of the 
sun out of the lower into the upper heaven, or, in the latter times, of the dead mummy 
into a living soul. Hor- Apollo says the scarabeeus deposits his ball of seed in the earth for 
the space of 28 days, the length of time during which the moon passes through the 12 
signs of the zodiac, and on the 29th day it opens the ball. The day on which the 
conjunction of sun and moon occurred was the day of resurrection for the new life. The 
beetle in heaven had once more transformed, and there was another new moon! 
The orb of the moon with its changes night after night, its drama longer even than any 
performed by the Chinese now-a-days, its drop-scene of the darkness at the end, and the 
transformation into the new life of light in the beginning, presented the earliest form of 
the primitive theatre, which offered its celestial show in heaven, gratis to all eyes that 
gazed up from below. This must have been one of the earliest educators in natural 
phenomena! There is nothing more interesting to me than to watch the nascent mind of 
man making its infantile clutch, and trying to catch on and lay hold of external things—to 
lay hold, as it were, of the skirts of the passing powers, that were held to be superior to 
itself: nothing more instructive than to follow the primitive ways of keeping touch with 
the life of external nature, and of sharing in the operations going on, so as to be on the 
right and safe side, and get on the true line for deriving some benefit from the way in 



which things were seen to be going! This is very touching in its simplicity, and will teach 
us more concerning the past of man than all the metaphysical interpretation hitherto 
attempted. The proper time for prayer, wishing or invoking aid, was at first sight of the 
new moon, just as it started visibly on the way to fulfilment, the mental attitude being, 
"May my wish be fulfilled like the light in thy orb, oh moon! May my life be renewed 
like thy light! " Such was the prayer of the Congo negroes. The full moon being the 
mother-moon, the eye that mirrored or reproduced the light of the sun, that will account 
for the day of the full moon being accounted—as it was by the Greeks, Britons, and 
others—the most propitious time for the marriage ceremony. The full moon was held to 
come forth great with good luck! Boy-children ought to be weaned when the horned 
moon was waxing, and girls when it was on the wane— the female being the reproducer as 
bringer-forth. So peas and beans were sown in the wane of the moon to rise again like the 
moon renewed. Corn ought to be cut during the wane of the moon if you would have 
them disappear quickly. In very simple ways the primitive observers had tried to set their 
life in time with the life going on around them, and thus get what light they could from 
Nature for their own guidance, and also make her language their own. Butler asks (in 
Hudibras):— 

"Why on a sign no painter draws 
The full moon ever but the half?" 

Now, that is very good sign language, especially as the "half-moon" is a public-house 
symbol. It was an invitation to eat and drink to the full, or come to the full as the halfmoon 
does; it may be, to "get fu'," in the Scottish sense. A moon already full would not 
have answered the purpose. 

An eclipse projected the shadow of coming calamity. The renewed light of the old moon 
was like a promise of eternal life and everlasting youth. When personified this was the 
healer, the saviour, an image of very life. The first-born from the dead, the first-fruits of 
them that slept in the graveyard of sunken suns, and cemetery of old dead moons, was 
reproduced visibly in external phenomena, as the new moon which was personated by the 
male moon-god Taht, called the eighth, and lord of the eighth region, as the place of 
rising again from the dead in the orb of the moon. There was a lunar mythology extant 
long before it was known that the lunar orb was a reflector of the solar light. There was a 
time also when it was not known, and could not be divined, that the moon which 
dwindled and died down visibly was the same moon that rose again from the dead. Hence 
there were two different messages conveyed from heaven to men on earth, by the hare as 
messenger for the moon in the lunar myths of the Hottentots and other primitive races. In 
one of these versions the moon declared that, as it died and did not rise again from its 
grave, even so was it with man, who went down to the earth and came back no more. But, 
when it had made out that the same moon returned as the old orb renewed, the nature of 
its revelation was reversed. Its message now contained a doctrine of the resurrection from 
the dead for man as well as moon. The re-arising and transforming orb at last proclaimed 
that even as it did not die out altogether, but was renewed from some hidden spring or 
source of light, so was it with the human race, who were likewise renewed to re-live on 
hereafter like the moon. In a myth of the Caroline Islanders it is said that at first men only 
quitted this life on the last day of the dying moon, to be revivified when the new moon 
appeared. But there was a dark spirit that inflicted a death from which there was no 
revival. This dark spirit, with its fatal message, was primary in fact, and the true 
assurance of survival, like the moon, depended on its being identified as the same moon 
which rose again. It is in this way that we can re-think the primitive thought, by getting it 
re-thinged in the physical realities of natural phenomena. In the Ute Mythos the task of 
making a moon was assigned to Whip-Poor- Will, a god of the night. The frog offered 



himself as a willing sacrifice for this purpose, and he was transformed by magical 
incantations into the New Moon. The symbolism is identical, whether derived from Egypt 
or not. So is it when the Buddha offers his body as a sacrifice, and transforms himself 
into the lunar hare. 

The Maories have a tradition of the first children of earth, in which they relate that the 
earliest subject of human thought was the difference between light and darkness; they 
were always thinking what might be the difference betwixt light and darkness. Naturally, 
the primary conditions of existence observed by primitive men were those that were most 
observable, and, foremost amongst these, were the phenomena of the day and the dark, 
which followed each other in ceaseless change. Mythology begins with this vague and 
merely elemental phase of external phenomena, alternating in night and day. In a 
secondary stage, it was observed that the battle field of this never ending warfare of day 
and dark was focussed and brought to a definite point in the orb of the moon, where the 
struggle betwixt the two personified powers of light and darkness went on and on for 
ever, each power having its triumph over the other in its turn, —these being depicted in 
one representation as the solar light and the serpent of darkness, in another by the lion 
and the unicorn. These phenomena of light and darkness were at first set forth by means 
of animals, reptiles, birds, and other primitive types of the elemental powers; and lastly 
the human type was adopted, and the cunning of the crocodile, or the jackal of darkness, 
is represented by the Egyptian Sut, the Norse Loki, the Greek Hermes, or the Jewish 
Jacob, the dark deceiver; and to-day, we find the Christian Evidence Society engaged in 
defending such characters as that of Jacob, in the full and perfect belief that Jacob was a 
human being, and one of God's chosen race. Whereas, he was no more a person than was 
Sut-Anup in Egypt, or Reynard the fox in Europe! The human form, like that of the 
earlier animal type, was only representative of some power manifested in natural 
phenomena. This mode of representation was known when these sacred stories were first 
told of mythical characters; it was afterwards continued and taught in the so-called 
"mysteries" by means of the Gnosis. When the art or Gnosis was lost to the world 
outside, the ancient histories were ignorantly supposed to be human in their origin; 
mythology was euhemerized (that is, the ideal was mistaken for the real), and Egyptian 
mythology was converted into Hebrew miracles and Christian history. 
Thus when the Iroquois Indians claim that the first ancestor of the red man was a hare, we 
do not know what that saying means until we learn the representative value of the 
symbol! So is it all sign-writing through. 

When Herodotus went to Egypt, he recognized the originals of the gods that were adored, 
amplified, embellished, or laughed at in Greece. At present, however, the Mullerites dare 
not mention Egypt, but look askance at those who do. Here is a crucial instance of 
survival, evidenced by philology, —the name of Mars as Ares will serve to prove how 
Egyptian underlies the Greek! The planet Mars is called Har-Tesh in Egyptian, which 
signifies the red lord, or the lord of gore. Cedrenus writes the name of Ares as Hartosi, 
and Vettius Valens as Hartes, whence Artis, and finally Ares. Again, the name of Hera 
denotes the heaven, over, in Egyptian; which certainly describes the nature of the Greek 
goddess of that name. 

When we are told by the Roman Catholic Egyptologist, Renouf, that "Neither Hebrews 
nor Greeks borrowed any of their ideas from Egypt," we can only think of such a dictum 
as an intentional blind, or as a result of putting up the glass to an eye that cannot see. It is 
simply impossible for the non-evolutionist, the bigotted Bibliolator, or the Miillerite, to 
interpret or to understand the mythology of Egypt. Its roots go deep, and its branches 
spread too far, for their range of thought. And now, let me offer a remarkable example of 
the modes in which the Egyptians expressed or tinged their thoughts, by means of 
external phenomena. The sun-god Ra is represented as possessing fourteen spirits or 
kaus, the living likenesses and glorified images of himself. These are portrayed as 



fourteen personages at Edfu and Denderah. In one text it is said,~"Hail to thee and thy 
fourteen spirits fourteen times." These are also mentioned in the tablet of Ipsambul, as the 
fourteen kaus of Ra, which "Taht has added to all his ways." Taht is the moon-god, and 
this gives us a clue to the fourteen spirits, which, I think, no Egyptologist has yet 
suspected. But Taht is the god of the first fourteen days of the moon's lunation, and 
fourteen nights of the new moon reproduced the likeness of the solar god in light fourteen 
times over; these were designated his apparition seen nightly in the moon! Indeed, the 
moon in its dark half was treated as the mummy or un-illuminated body of the sun-god, 
who is described as coming to visit, to comfort it, to beget upon it, in the under-world. 
This lunar body of the solar soul is represented by the ass-headed god Aai (upon which 
the sun-god rode), who is found mummified on the tomb of Rameses 6th. Thus, the dark 
orb or body of the moon was the mummy of the sun, and its fourteen days of growing 
light were thought of as fourteen manifestations of the solar-god in spiritual apparition, 
visible by night in the moon; hence it will be seen how natural it was that the lunar orb 
should be looked up to as the home of spirits, as when the Egyptian prays that his soul 
may ascend to heaven in the disk of the moon! Another fable of the dark half of the 
lunation has been preserved by Plutarch, who relates that when Typhon, the evil power, 
was hunting by moonlight, he by chance came upon the dead body or mummy of Osiris 
prepared for burial, and, knowing it again, he tore it into fourteen parts, and scattered 
them all about. These fourteen parts typify the fourteen days of the lessening light, during 
which the devil of darkness had the upper hand. The twenty-eight days made one lunar 
month according to Egyptian reckoning. 

The earlier and simpler representation of the lunar light and dark is portrayed in the myth 
of the Two Brothers, who always contend for supremacy over each other. The most 
ancient and primitive myths are found to be the most universal; and this of the twin 
brothers is extant all over the world. It is the myth of Sut-Horus in Egypt; the Asvins or 
Krishna and Balarama in India; the Crow and the Eagle of the Australian blacks; Tsuni- 
Goam and Gaunab among the Hottentots; Jack and Jill, and twenty other forms that I 
have compared in my "Natural Genesis." It is that struggle of two brothers in the 
beginning which is represented in the Hebrew book of Genesis as the murderous conflict 
of Cain and Abel. Cain as the victor is the same character as the Egyptian Khunsu, Khun 
or Khen, meaning to chase, hunt, beat, be the victor, and therefore I take it that the name 
of Cain is probably one with the Egyptian Khun. Abel is the dark little one that fades and 
falls and passes away, the one who becomes a sacrificial type, because of the nature of 
the phenomena. The conqueror is portrayed as the killer. The Gnostic Cainites, however, 
maintained truly that Cain derived his being from the power above, and not from the evil 
power below. They knew the Mythos. The contention of Jacob and Esau for birth and for 
the birth-right is another form of the same myth. Esau, the red and hairy, is really the lord 
of light in the new moon. Jacob is the child of darkness, hence the deceiver by nature and 
by name. A Jewish tradition relates that Esau, when born, had the likeness of a serpent 
marked upon his heel. This shows he was a personification of the hero who bruised the 
serpent's head, and that Jacob, who laid hold of Esau's heel, was a co-type in phenomena 
with the serpent of darkness. There is nothing moral or immoral in mere physical 
phenomena themselves. No fratricide is actually committed by the conquering Cain, nor 
fraud by the dark and wily Jacob. But when these same phenomena are dramatised, and 
the characters are made human, or inhuman, as the case may be, the un-moral becomes 
immoral, and the human image is disfigured by the most wilful flaw, or wanton brand of 
degradation. Cain is made the murderer of his own brother, in the beginning, and that red 
stain is supposed to run through all human history, as a first result of Adam's fall, and to 
burn on the brow of man until it is washed out at last in the blood of a redeeming 
Saviour— who is equally mythical. 
This lunar representation has several shapes in Egyptian mythology, where the Twin 



Brothers are Sut and Osiris, Sut and Horus, the two Horuses, Taht and Aan, or Khunsu 
and Typhon. 

In his Hibbert lectures Mr. Renouf says curtly, the Egyptian god "Khunsu is the moon." 
But such Egyptology has not yet blazed the veriest surface of the mythology. Such 
statements teach nothing truly, because they do not put in the bottom facts. They do not 
help us to think in those phenomena which have been entified or divinised in and as 
mythology. It may be said quite as bluntly that Khunsu is not the moon. He only 
represents one phase of the lunar phenomena, which are triadic. Khunsu is the child of 
the sun and moon. His name denotes the young hero. When this deity was evolved it had 
been discovered that the moon derived her light from the sun. In the planisphere of 
Denderah the youthful God Khunsu is pourtrayed in the disk of the full moon at Easter, 
where he represents the light and force of the sun that is reborn monthly and annually of 
the lunar orb considered to be his mother, who thus reproduces the child of light in the 
disk of the moon. The same myth is likewise Osirian, as we learn from one of the hymns, 
where it is said, "Hail to 
173 

thee, Osiris, Lord of Eternity! When thou art in heaven thou appearest as the sun, and 
thou renewest thyself as the moon." But this renewal of light in the moon was pourtrayed 
as the re-birth of the god in the person of his own child; hence the child Horus is also 
depicted like the child Khunsu in the disk of the full moon, as both may be seen in the 
same planisphere of Denderah. Khunsu is the Egyptian Jack the giant-killer. In the Ritual 
he is called the slayer of rebels and piercer of the proud. His natural genesis was in the 
tiny light of the new moon, which rose up with its sharp horns to pierce the powers of 
night, and drive them out of the darkened orb. The giants of the primitive mind were the 
powers of darkness, which forever rose up in revolt against the light, kept all life 
cowering in their shadow by night, took possession of the moon in the latter half of the 
lunation, or covered its face with the blood and dust of battle during the terrible time of 
an eclipse. Then the little hero, the child of light, arose and made war on the giants, and 
overcame them as he grew in glory and waxed greatly in the plenitude of his Hidden 
father's power and might. The name of Khunsu's father is Amen, the Hidden God, the 
child Khunsu being his visible representative re-born in the new moon. 
Mythology is the ground-work of all our theology and Christology, and it is only by 
mastering the plan that we can learn how the superstructure has been built. This character 
of Khunsu is that of the mythical Messiah, or manifester in external nature, as a 
representative of the Eternal in the phenomena of time. In Egypt, Seb-Kronus, or Time, 
was designated the true Repa, or Heir- Apparent to the father, Osiris or Amen-Ra, and the 
re-birth in time, might be monthly or annually, every nineteen or twenty-five, 500 or 
2155, years, according to the particular period. In the mystical or spiritual phase this 
representative of divinity was the Christ within, the Son of God incarnate in matter; the 
Christ of the Gnostics who was not a man; their Jesus, who could not be a Jew; their 
Redeemer, who was but the immortal principle in man, a Deliverer from the degradation; 
a Saviour solely from the dissolution of matter, which the Greek poet Linus calls the 
"Giver of all shameful things." 

But to return to the Moon Mythos. The legend of Samson can now be read for the first 
time as the Hebrew version of the Egyptian myth of Khunsu, the luni-solar hero who 
slays the giants—or Philistines—and overcomes the powers of darkness. It was impossible 
to read the riddle by supposing, with Steinthal, that Samson was simply the sun-god 
himself; because if he were, in killing the lion he would be only slaying the reflection of 
himself— the lion being a solar type. The name of Shimshon denotes the luminous or 
shining one, as an emanation of the solar fire. Samson, like Khunsu, is the typical hero. 
Khunsu is the Egyptian Heracles. Samson, like Heracles, slays the lion, as his first great 
labour, or feat of strength. This deed is represented allegorically, and is put forth as his 



riddle. Out of the eater 
174 

came forth meat, and out of the mighty came forth sweetness. The mighty one who 
devours is the lion, and the honey was found in its dead carcase. The Mithraic and 
Egyptian monuments will enable us to read the riddle. In the Persian we see the lion 
depicted with a bee in its mouth. The lion, or rather the lioness, was an Egyptian figure of 
fire— the lioness in heat. She was represented, by the goddess of the solar fire and 
alcoholic spirit, as Sekhet, who carries the sun's disk on the head of a lioness. The name 
of this she-lion, Sekhet, is also the name for the bee, which is the royal symbol of Lower 
Egypt; and the bee denotes the sweetness in the lion. Now, the fiercest solar heat was 
coincident with the waters of the Inundation, two-thirds of which (according to Hor- 
Apollo) poured down into Egypt whilst the sun was in the sign of the lion. Sekhet was 
also the goddess of sweetness or pleasure— we may say literally, goddess of the 
honeymoon. Hence the association of the lion and the bee, or the honey in the lion. The 
triumph over the lion may be understood in this way. Sekhet, the she-lion, impersonated 
the force of the sun, which was often fatal, hence she was made the punisher of the 
wicked with hell-fire; and this lunar hero, as Heracles, Khunsu, or Samson, was the 
conqueror in the cool of the night, which followed the fiery fervour of the sun by day. 
Further, at the time the sun was in the lion-sign, the full moon rose vis-a-vis in the sign of 
the Waterman, or Waterwoman, in the Hermean Zodiac; and we cannot read one part of 
the celestial imagery independently of the other. In this full moon, which brought the 
sweet, fresh waters to Egypt, the hero attained the height of his glory, as conqueror of the 
furnace-heat which culminated then and there with the sun in the sign of the lioness, as 
reflector of the fiercest solar fire. As the moon was the bringer of the waters, and the 
breath of life in the coolness and the dews of night, the lunar hero was not only credited 
with drawing the sting of Sekhet, but with extracting honey from the dead lion. 
When the young hero as son of the sun-god, reborn of the new moon, has once more 
conquered in conflict with his eternal enemy, and he breaks out in triumph, free from the 
throttling folds of the dragon, of the Sami, or the Philistines, as he ascends aloft he is seen 
bearing the dark orb of the old moon as a palpable proof of his power. He had burst 
through the barriers of the underworld, the gates of death and darkness; and so it would 
be fabled that he carried the barriers away with him, and bore them visibly on high to the 
summit of the lunar ascent! It is so represented when Samson not only breaks out of 
Gaza, but tears up the city gates, and carries them away by night with their posts, bolts, 
and bars, to the top of the hill, or mountain of the moon, as the lunar height was called! 
The soli-lunar nature of the hero is shown by the number 30 (the thirty days to the month 
in the soli-lunar reckoning.) Samson has thirty companions. He smote thirty men at 
Ascalon, and spoiled them of thirty changes of raiment. The number 7 is also an allimportant 
factor in the lunar mythos, with its twenty-eight days to the month. In the 
cuneiform legend of Ishtar the goddess descends and ascends through seven gates, each 
way in her passage to and from the netherworld, as female representative of the moon. So 
when Sut-Typhon, the dark one of the lunar twins, was beaten by Horus, he is described 
by Plutarch as fleeing from the battle during seven days on the back of an ass! In each 
case the number 7 signifies one quarter of a moon. The number 7, answering to one lunar 
quarter, is prominent in the legend of Samson. In one phase he tells Delilah that if he is 
bound with seven new bow-strings his strength will depart, and he will become weak, and 
be as another man. But when these are applied to him they are snapped like a string of 
fire-singed tow! We may suppose this phase to represent the first seven days of the 
growing crescent moon; hence the seven new bow-strings, which are in keeping with the 
seven strings of the lunar harp. In the second phase the hero is bound with new ropes, 
which he freed himself from as if they had been thread. Fourteen days brings us to the 
moon at full, and to the culmination of Samson's glory. Then he confesses to his charmer 



that if the seven locks of his head are shaven off his strength will assuredly depart. Now, 
hair is an especial, primitive type of virility, potency, and power. In the Egyptian Ritual 
the Osirified as Horus, ascends the heaven with his long hair reaching down to his 
shoulders as a type of his growing glory. Moreover, Samson's hair, the emblem of his 
strength, is in seven locks. These answer to the seven nights of the quarter in which the 
lunar splendour comes to the full, and the opposing powers of darkness, called the 
Philistines, are very literally "cleared out." When this period is past, and the hero is shorn 
of his hair, the Philistines are upon him once more. This time the drama is to come to an 
end. But not without an intimation of its being continued or repeated in the next new 
moon, for the narrative confesses conscientiously that Samson's hair began to grow again 
after he was shaven. But for the present the powers of darkness prevail; and having shorn 
the hero of his glory during seven nights, and brought him low, they put out his sight and 
bind him with fetters of brass, eyeless in Gaza, pitiful and forlorn as "blind Orion 
hungering for the morn." 

The eye of the blinded Horus being put out by Sut, who was at the head of the Typhonian 
powers, called the Sami, or conspirators, is identical in the Egyptian mythos with the 
putting out of Samson's eyes in the Hebrew version! In the Osirian myth, however, it is 
the eye of Horus that is wounded; the eye that is swallowed by Sut; the eye that is 
restored at dawn of day, and this one-eyed form of the mythos survives in the account of 
Samson's blindness when he prays for strength enough to avenge the loss of one of his 
two eyes, as we have it in the margin! The lunar light was the eye of the sun, but this 
becomes the two eyes of the hero when he is rendered according to the complete human 
likeness, which shows us how the mythos was rationalised as history. It is Delilah who 
causes the ruin of Samson, just as Ishtar, called Goddess 15, as the moon at full, is the 
ruin of her lovers, in the legend of Ishtar and Izdubar, where she is charged with being an 
enchantress, a poisoner, a destroyer of male potency. Izdubar, the sun-god, reproaches 
her with witchcraft, her murderous lust, her merciless cruelty, and declines to become her 
lover himself! According to the myth the luni-solar male divinity was represented in the 
wane of the light as suffering from the evil influence of the female moon. It is very 
evident that the myths were made by men; as in case of a fall or catastrophe it was always 
she who did it. She tempted the poor man, or overcame the god. It was she who had shorn 
him of his glory; she who had given him poison to drink, and betrayed him to the powers 
of darkness; she who is the cause of his impotential mood, his waning, languishing, and 
drooping down. And the true meaning of Delilah's name, I take it, expresses the 
weakened, worn-out, impotent condition of the lunar hero thus brought low—the name 
being derivable from a root signifying to totter, droop, and hang inertly down—Delilah 
being the personified cause of this emasculated condition of the reduced and wretched, 
bound and blinded lunar god, the mighty hero in his fallen state. The Danes have a lunar 
Delilah or lady of the moon, who is described as being very beautiful when seen in front, 
but she is hollow behind: she plays upon a harp of seven strings, and with this she lures 
young men to her on purpose to destroy them. The Hebrews have a Talmudic tradition 
that Samson was lame in both his feet. And this was the status or condition of the child- 
Horus, who was said to be maimed and halt in his lower members; the cripple deity, as he 
is called by Plutarch. Other scattered fragments of the true myth are to be found; for 
instance, in the lunar triad of the mother and the twin brothers, one of them accompanies 
the female moon during the first half of the total lunation, the other during the latter half 
and this appears to be reflected by the Hebrew mythos when Samson's wife is "given to 
his companion whom he had used as a friend." Again, the jackal was an Egyptian type of 
the dark one that devoured by night, and of Sut, the thief of light in the moon, he who 
swallowed the Eye of Horus. Jackal and fox are co-types, and they have one name, that of 
Shugal, the howler, in Hebrew. This enables us to understand the story of the 300 foxes 
or jackals in the Jewish form of the myth. Samson being the representative of the sun-god 



who drives the darkness out of or away from the lunar orb, and does all the damage he 
can to the Typhonian powers, or Philistines, the story-teller multiplies the jackal to 
enhance the triumph of his hero; and instead of the struggle between Horus and the 
jackal-headed Sut-Anup, we have the more difficult feat of catching 300 jackals and 
setting fire to their tails, so that they might consume the crops of the Philistines, or, in 
other words, burn out the darkness from the orb of the moon. 

It is probable that Mithra, son of Ahura Mazda, and natural opponent of the dark Power, 
is the same representative of the God of Light, reflected in the moon as the witness by 
night for the absent sun. It may be noted that Matra in Egyptian means the Witness, or 
more fully, the Witness for Ra. The scene pourtrayed on the Persian monuments is 
nocturnal, and the time of year is that of the sun's entrance into the sign of Scorpio, where 
it is deprived of its virility. At this time the moon rises at full in the sign of the Bull, the 
first of the superior signs. The Lord of Light in the moon is now the dominating power 
during six months. Thus Mithras slaying the Bull is equivalent to Samson killing the 
Lion, or overcoming the fierceness of the Solar fire; and also of Osiris doing battle with 
Sut-Typhon and conquering his terrors in external phenomena. Osiris dies on the 17th of 
the month Athor, which was at the time of the Autumn Equinox, or rather he enters the 
six lower signs at that time. An ark was made in the shape of a crescent moon, and on the 
19th of the same month the priests proclaimed that Osiris was found, his resurrection on 
the third day being in the moon. Thus it was in the new moon that the Dead Osiris7?r^ 
returned to life in the form of his own son. 

Our modern solarite interpreters can talk of little else but the sun, the dawn, and the dark. 
Mr. Renouf, in his Hibbert lectures, identifies Sut-Anubis with the twilight, or as the 
dusk. Hence, when it is said in the texts that he "swallowed his father Osiris," this on the 
face of it looks like the darkness of night swallowing the disappearing sun. But Egyptian 
mythology is by no means so simple as that. It is not to be fathomed on the face of it, nor 
can it be interpreted without such a knowledge of the total typology, as the Aryan School 
all put together do not possess. There is nothing simply solar in it anywhere! It is true that 
Sut represents the presence and the power of darkness. It is true that the nocturnal sun in 
the under world was called Osiris, or Atum, or Amen-Ra. Also, the setting orbs of light 
were represented as being swallowed down by the crocodile or some other type of the 
devourer. But the continual conflict and alternate victory of light and darkness were seen 
to have their most obvious, most visible, most interesting field of battle in the moon! It 
was there the watchers observed the never-ceasing struggle for the birth-right of the twin 
brothers, who personated the opposing powers. The dark one was first born from the 
mother moon at full; but the light one was acknowledged to be the genuine heir-apparent! 
There is a myth of the blind Horus in which he is described as sitting solitary in his 
darkness. Sut is said to have swallowed his eye, or to have wounded it, and put out the 
sight. In one text Horus says, "Behold, my eye is as though Sut (Anup) had pierced it." In 
another he cries, "I am Horus. I come to search for mine eyes." Sut, who swallows the 
eye, is made to restore it again! In one account the eye is said to be restored at the dawn 
of day; that is in the vague stage of the conflict between the darkness and the light. 
At one time, says Plutarch, Sut smote Orus in the Eye; this represented the diminution of 
the moon. At another he plucked the eye out and swallowed it, afterwards giving it back 
to the sun. This blinding denoted the Eclipse. 

In the lunar phase of the mythos the Eye of light, or of the sun, is the moon. The moon at 
full was the mirror of light, hence it was the mother of Horus as the child of light! But the 
eye was the primitive mirror. So the moon was called the Eye of the sun, when it was 
known as a reflector of the solar light. Thus the lunar orb was the consort of the sun; his 
Eye by night, as the reproducer of his light when he was in the under-world; and in 
reproducing the light she was as the mother bringing forth his child! For instance, the 
cow was a type of the moon as Hathor, or as Aahti, and when the cow is portrayed with 



the solar disk between her horns, the imagery denotes the mother-moon as bearer of the 
sun, that is, as reproducer of the solar light in the lunar orb, or, as it was also said, in the 
Eye. 

For this reason the mother of Horus, child of light, is also described as being the eye of 
Horus, the moon-mirror in which the father Osiris made babies in the eye, as the poets 
say, or was reflected as Horus, the child of light, re-born monthly of the moon as his 
mother. The lunar god Taht is sometimes pourtrayed with the eye of Horus, or the new 
moon in his hand. And the goddess Meri=Mary bears the eye upon her head, as typical 
reproducer of the child. Now this is the eye that was swallowed by Sut. When the power 
of darkness had put out the lunar light, the eye was not only pierced but swallowed, as 
the phenomena were rendered in the mythos. Moreover, as Osiris had become the father 
of all, he was also the acknowledged father of Sut; and as it was the father who was 
reflected by the mother-moon, or the eye, Sut may be said to have swallowed his own 
father when he obscured the lunar light, or swallowed it with the darkness during an 
eclipse. This was the symbolic eye that was full on the 14th of the month in the lunar, or 
on the 15th in the soli-lunar reckoning, or on the 30th Epiphi, when the eye of the year 
was full, according to the Egyptian Ritual. The swallowing of Osiris by Sut belongs to 
the soli-lunar phenomena! Plutarch tells us that some of the Egyptians held the shadow of 
the earth, which caused an eclipse of the moon, to be Sut Typhon. By aid of which we can 
identify the original dragon of the eclipse! The mythical and celestial dragon, as I have 
elsewhere demonstrated, was founded on the crocodile as the natural type of the 
swallowing darkness. The crocodile is the swallower of the lights as they go down in the 
west, and the tail of the crocodile reads kam, i.e., black, darkness. Typhon (both male and 
female) is represented by the crocodile, the dragon of the waters and of darkness. Now 
the most thrilling and fearsome act of the lunar drama was during the period of eclipse. 
There is something very weird, uncanny, and unked, in the projection of the earth's 
shadow across the luminous face of the moon. To the primitive mind it was the crocodile 
above, or the dragon, swallowing the orb of light, or Sut swallowing his father Osiris. An 
eclipse was the meal -time of the monster. An eclipse was the scene of the great battle 
between Horus and Sut, or Horus and the Dragon, and the great battle was identical with 
that of our George and the Dragon. The same struggle between the powers of light and 
darkness is portrayed in the Book of Revelation when the woman clothed with the sun, 
and the moon under her feet, is about to bring forth her man child, and the great dragon of 
eclipse stands before her ready to devour the child as soon as it is born! In the oldest 
astronomy the years were reckoned by the eclipses, as it was in Egypt, China, and India. 
And the most ancient type of time or Kronus, as Egyptian, is Sevekh, the crocodileheaded 
god, that is, the dragon of eclipse who annually swallowed the moon containing 
the Lord of Light or his infant Image. 

According to the mythical mode of representing the natural fact, three days and three 
nights were reckoned for the absence of the lunar light, between old and new moon, and 
the Lord of Light in the lunar orb was said to be swallowed by a Dragon or a monster fish 
and to remain for that length of time in its belly. The legend is Egyptian. The great fish is 
the crocodile, the dragon of the deep. This is called the fish of Horus in the Ritual. The 
Crocodile first denoted the earth as the swallower of the Lights before it became the 
Water-Dragon, and so the Manifestor, as Horus, Jonah, Tangaroa, or the Christ, could be 
three days in the earth or the great fish previously to his resurrection. Types and stories 
might be manifold; the fact signified was always the same. Hence the Jonah of the 
Hebrew version is identical with the Christ, not as type of him, where all is typical; and in 
the Roman Catacombs the Jonah of one version is the Christ of the other. Jonah issues 
from the great fish in the form of the Child-Christ. Thus the origin of the "three days and 
three nights in the heart of the earth," or in the Crocodile, is to be found in lunar 
phenomena. 



In a later form of the Osirian legend the Twins are the double Horus, instead of the Sut- 
Horus of the Typhonian myth. In this we see the little dark child eyeless, soulless, 
maimed in his lower members, going into Tattu to meet his soul, his other self, his 
glorified body, the double, like that of Buddha, which was called his diamond body. This 
other self is designated the soul of the sun, and it is this which revivifies, regenerates, and 
transforms the child of the mother-moon into the virile Horus, the new moon horned and 
pubescent. There is a tradition preserved by Plutarch that the child Horus, the cripple 
deity, begotten in the dark, was the result of Osiris having accompanied with Isis after her 
decease, or with Nephthys her sister, below the horizon. Even this representation is 
perfectly correct according to the natural phenomena. Isis personates the moon, which 
dies to be again renewed. The renewal occurs in the under-world, and is out of sight or all 
in the dark. Osiris, as the sun below the horizon is the renovator of the old, dead orb of 
the moon, which he causes to re-live with his light; hence the fable of his accompanying 
with Isis after her demise is in accordance with the mythical mode of representing the 
phenomena of external nature in human imagery. 

In one of its phases the moon was portrayed in the character of a thief, which was 
personated by the jackal, ape, or wolf, who represented Goddess 15. Ishtar is described as 
ascending and descending the steps of the moon, so many days up and so many days 
down—of these days there would be fifteen altogether, in accordance with her name of 
Goddess 15. And here the Christian Mary can be identified in this lunar character by 
means of the Apocryphal Gospels, that contain legends of the infancy which are of 
primary importance, hence they have been denounced as spurious, excommunicated as 
heretical, and kept out of sight by Papal commands. In pseudo Matthew (ch. iv), we learn 
that when the Virgin was an infant, just weaned, she ran up the fifteen steps of the temple 
at full speed, without once looking back. At this age she was regarded as an adult of 
about thirty years! The story of the fifteen steps is repeated in the Gospel of Mary's 
nativity (ch. vi.), where the fifteen steps are associated with the fifteen Psalms of degrees. 
Further, it was on the 15th day of the moon that the dark one of the twins was re-born, as 
the lessening, waning one of the two; and in the history of Joseph the carpenter, Jesus 
says that Mary gave him birth in the fifteenth year of her age, by a mystery that no 
creature can understand except the Trinity. The Trinity being lunar, the subject matter is 
identical according to the Gnosis of numbers, and Mary is also a form of the Goddess 
15,— Meri, or Hathor-Meri, in the Egyptian Mythos. 

It is only in lunar phenomena that we can see how the child could be born from the side 
of its mother, as Sut-Horus was, as well as the Buddha, or the Christ. Also, the divine 
child, as Buddha, was said to be visible whilst in the mother's womb. The womb of the 
mother being the lunar orb in which the child in embryo can be seen in course of growth, 
it was represented as being transparent with the child on view. The child Jesus is so 
pourtrayed in the Christian pictures of the enciente Virgin Mary, as may be seen in 
Didron's Iconography! 

The birth of the dark one of the mother-moon's two children, depends upon that part of 
the lunar orb which is turned away from the sun, being dimly seen through the light 
reflected from our earth. As the light began to lessen, and the orb became opaque, there 
was an obvious birth of the dark part of the moon! That was the birth of the little, dark 
one, of the lunar twins. So fine a point of departure from the light half to the dark, and 
from the dark half to the light, may be likened to a single hair— as it was in the Hindu 
mythos, which represents Krishna as being born from a single black hair and Balarama 
from a single white hair of Vishnu. This is, probably, the mythical meaning of a saying 
attributed to the Christ in the gospel of the Hebrews,— "And straightway," said Jesus, "the 
holy spirit (my mother) took me and bore me by one of the hairs of my head, to the great 
mountain called Thabor." The exact colour of the dark orb is slate-black, and this has 
been preserved in India as the complexion of the dark child, Hari or Krishna. These types 



of the light and dark twins were certainly continued as the two-fold Christ in Rome, one 

form of whom is the little black Bambino of Italy, the Christ who was black for the same 

reason that Sut was black in Egypt, and Krishna was blue-black in India. He was black, 

because mythical, and not because the Word was humanly incarnated as a nigger! He was 

black because he was the child of the virgin-mother as the moon! 

One type of the twins found in the lunar phenomena has been humanised in the story of 

Jesus and John; these can be traced back to Horus and Sut, who is Aan or Anup, the 

Egyptian John. These two appear in the Ritual as the "Precursor," and the one who is 

preferred to him who was first in coming. Speaking in the twin character, the Osirified 

deceased says, "I am Anup in the day of judgment. I am Horus, the Preferred, on the day 

of rising." Anup presided over the judgment; so John the Precursor proclaims the 

judgment; and calls the world to repentance. Jesus comes as the "preferred one" on the 

day of his rising up out of the waters, when John the Precursor says of Jesus, "After me 

cometh a man which is become before me! " John's was the voice of one crying in the 

wilderness, "Make ye ready the way of the Lord." "I make way," says Horus, "by what 

Anup (the Precursor) has done for me." The twin lunar characters of John and Jesus can 

be identified in the gospel where John says of Jesus "He must increase, but I must 

decrease." So the title of the Akkadian moon-god, Sin, as the increaser of light, is Enuzu- 

na, the Lord of waxing. In the Mithraic mysteries the light one of the twins was 

designated the bridegroom, and in one passage we meet with the bridegroom and the 

bride, that is the lunar mother of the Twins and Christ as the bridegroom. John personates 

the dark one; like Sut-Anup, he is not the light itself, and only bears witness to the light. 

The Christ or Horus was consort to the mother-moon, and the reproducer of himself. John 

says of him, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom 

which standeth and heareth him rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice." 

These three, the bride, bridegroom, and John, are a perfect replica of the lunar Trinity. 

John represents the dark half of the moon, the child of the mother only, and he is 

unmistakably identified by Jesus in or as this mythical character when he says of his forerunner, 

"Among them that are born of woman there is none greater than John, yet, he that 

is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he;" that is, among those who are reborn 

in the likeness of the father, as Horus was when the solar god re-begot him in his 

own image as the reflection of his hidden glory reproduced by the new moon—the least of 

these is greater than he who was born of the mother alone. 

As we have seen, the fox and jackal were both of them Typhonian types of the dark 

power, the thief of light in the moon, and co-types, therefore, with the dragon that 

swallowed the moon during an eclipse. Now, the name of Herod in Syriac denotes a red 

dragon; and the red dragon in Revelation, which stands ready to devour the young child 

that is about to be born, is the mythical form of the Herod who has been made historical 

in our gospels. Here the legendary devourer, the dark half of the lunation. The Germans 

have a saying that the wolf is eating the candle when there is what is still called a thief in 

it. So the primitive observers saw the dark encroaching on the light, and they said the 

wolf, jackal, rat, or other sly animal was eating the moon as the thief of its light. This is 

why Hermes was represented as the thief. In two different forms of the lunar mythos the 

jackal and the dog-headed ape were two types of this thief of the light. And in the zodiac 

of Denderah, just where Horus is on the cross, or at the crossing of the vernal equinox, 

these two thieves, Sut-Anup and Aan, are depicted one on either side of the luni-solar 

god. These two mythical originals have, I think, been continued and humanised as the 

two thieves in the Gospel version of the crucifixion. 

The character of the thief still clings to the man in the moon. In a North Frisian folk-tale 

the man in the moon is fabled to have stolen branches of willow, or the sallow-palms, 

which he has to carry in his hands forever. Here we can identify the palm-branch of the 

man in the moon as Egyptian. The palm-branch was a type of time and periodicity. Hor- 



Apollo tells us it was adopted as the symbol of a month, because it alone produces one 
additional branch at each renovation of the moon, so that in reckoning the year is 
completed in twelve branches. A form of this appears as the Tree of Life in the book of 
Revelation. The palm-branch is carried by Taht, the man in the moon, and scribe of the 
gods, who reckoned time by means of the lunations, and this evidently survives in the 
Frisian legend. He who once reckoned time by means of the shoots on the palm-branch 
became the picker-up or stealer of willow- wands or sticks, according to the later folklore. 
Also, when the moon-god was superseded by the sun as the truer reckoner of time, 
the character of the lunar deity suffered degradation! We find the same contention going 
on as there was between the number thirteen and twelve. When the year was reckoned by 
thirteen moons of twenty-eight days each, thirteen was then the lucky number (a charm of 
primroses or a sitting of eggs was thirteen), but when this was changed for the twelve 
months of solar time, then the number thirteen became unlucky or accursed. The day of 
rest being changed from Saturday, the old lunar god was charged with being a Sabbathbreaker. 
He stole sticks, he strewed brambles and thorn-bushes on the paths of people 
who went to church on Sunday (the day of the Sun). He did not keep the day of rest, but 
would go on working, or reckoning time with his palm-branch, Sundays as well as weekdays, 
and so he was doomed to stand in the moon for all eternity as a warning to wicked 
Sabbath-breakers. Taht (or Khunsu) is the Egyptian man in the moon, who in the dark 
half of the period was represented by the dog-headed ape; and from these came our man 
in the moon with his dog. The Creek Indians have the same myth. They say the 
inhabitants of the moon consist of a man and his dog. 

The ass was another Typhonian type of the moon. In an Egyptian representation, it is by 
the aid of the ass-headed god Aai that the solar divinity ascends from the under- world 
where the dark powers have their time of triumph over him by night. The ass is 
pourtrayed in the act of hauling up the sun-god with a rope from the region below. That is 
one mode of expressing the fact that the moon here represented by the ass was the helper 
of the sun by night, in his battle against the powers of darkness—gave him a lift up, or, it 
may be, a ride. Again, in the Persian form of the lunar myth, it is the ass that stands on 
three legs in the midst of the waters, who is the assistant of Sothis, the dogstar, in keeping 
time. The three legs of the ass are a figure of the moon in its three phases often days 
each, like the three legs of the frog in the Chinese myth. Also, the head of the ass is an 
Egyptian hieroglyphic sign which has the numeral value of thirty, or a soli-lunar month. 
Thus we find the ass fighting on the side of the sun by night in the Egyptian mythos, and 
against the waters of the deluge, as a timekeeper in the Persian legend. In the Hebrew 
version the jaw-bone of the ass, a type of great strength, becomes the weapon of power 
with which Samson slays the Philistines, or fights the sun-god's battle by night against his 
enemies that lurk in darkness. The ass, as a lunar type, was also represented as the bearer 
of the solar Messiah, just as the cow carries the sun between her horns as reproducer of 
his light in the moon. The moon at full was the genetrix under either type. The lessening, 
waning moon was her colt—the foal of an ass. The new moon, as the young lord of light, 
came riding in his triumph on the ass, as the new moon on the dark orb of the old mothermoon! 
Now, in the apocryphal gospel of James, called the Protevangelium, the virgin 
Mary is described as riding on the ass when Joseph sees her laughing on one side of her 
face, and crying or being sad on the other! Which corresponds to the light and dark 
halves of the moon. She is lifted from the ass to give birth to the child of light in the 
Cave. In the Greek myth Hephaistos ascends from the under-world riding on the ass, the 
wine-god having made him drunk before leading him up to heaven. In the Hebrew 
version the Shiloh is to come, binding his ass to the vine, his eyes red with wine, his 
garments drenched in the blood of the grape, and he is as obviously drunk as Hephaistos. 
This imagery was set in the planisphere, ages before our era, as the fore-figure and 
prophecy of that which was to be fulfilled in the Christian history, according to the 



canonical gospels! Now it can be seen how the Messiah may be said to come riding on an 
ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass, although it is pitiful enough to give one the 
heartache, to expose the miserable pretences under which this mythical Messiah has been 
masked in human form, and made to put on the cast-off clothing of the pagan gods, and 
play their parts once more; this time to prove the real presence of a god in the world. 
It was as the mother-moon that Ishtar of Akkad was designated "Goddess Fifteen, "--she 
being named from the full moon in a month of thirty days. The same fact is signified in 
the Egyptian Ritual (ch. 80), when the Woman of the moon at full orb exclaims,— "I have 
made the eye of Horus (the mirror of light), when it was not coming on the festival of the 
15th day." She is the Egyptian form of the the swallower of the moon, is impersonated as 
a Jewish ruler who commands all the innocent little ones to be murdered in order that he 
may include the child-Christ reborn for the overthrow of him who can only rule in the 
kingdom of darkness. Now, if we bear in mind that fox, jackal, wolf, and dragon are 
equally Typhonian types of the evil one, the destroyer, we may possibly interpret a 
particular epithet applied to Herod, the destroyer, by the Christ in the gospel according to 
Luke. When Jesus is told that Herod would fain kill him, "he said unto them, Go and say 
to that fox, behold I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third 
day I am perfected." The scene is obviously in the underworld, where the moon-god 
descended during the three dark nights before he rose again or was perfected on the third 
day. It was here that the god as Khunsu, the caster-out of demons, or Horus, performed 
cures and exorcised the evil spirits that infested the departed in their underground passage 
where the dragon Herod, or the Typhonian reptile Herrut, lurked, and sought to kill the 
healer of the diseased and deliverer of the dead. 

Having identified Herod, the mythical monster, with the dragon, and as the fox, we may 
carry the parallel a little farther, and perhaps identify him as the traditional murderer of 
John! 

As already shown, in the Christian continuation of the legend, John takes the place of 
Taht-Aan, the dark one of the lunar twins. John and Jesus are equivalent to Aan and 
Horus. In the Apocryphal or Legendary Lore, John is often identified with and identified 
as the primary Messiah! He is so in the Apocryphal Gospel of James. In this, Herod is 
seeking the life of the Divine child, and he sends his servants to kill John. We read that 
"Herod sought after John, and sent his servant to Zachariah saying, Where hast thou 
hidden thy son? 1 and Herod said 'his son is going to be the King of Israel." Here it is John 
who is to be the infant Messiah whose life is sought by the destroyer Herod, and the fact, 
according to the true mythos, is that John represents the first and that one of the lunar 
twins whom Herod, or the Typhonian devourer, does put an end to, because he personates 
the dark half of the lunation, the waning, lessening moon, that darkens down and dies. In 
the Zodiac of Denderah we see the figure of Anup pourtrayed with his head cut off; and I 
doubt not that the decapitated Aan or Anup is the prototype of the Gospel John who was 
beheaded by Herod. In the planisphere Anup stands headless just above the river of the 
Waterman, the Greek Eridanus, Egyptian Iarutana, the Hebrew Jordan; and we are told 
that the Mandaites, who were amongst the followers of John, had a tradition that the river 
Jordan ran red with the blood which flowed from the headless body of John. 
As I have previously pointed out, the Christ of the Gospel according to Luke has several 
features in common with the moon-god Khunsu, the healer of lunatics and persons 
possessed, who was likewise lord over the pig, a type of Typhon, the evil power. Khunsu 
followed Taht, as child of the sun and moon, after Taht had been, so to say, divinized into 
invisibility. Taht-Khunsu is the visible representative, who registers the decrees of the 
hidden Deity, Amen-Ra, the god who seeth in secret. He is particularly the god of health 
and long life. It is said that he gives years to those whom he chooses, solicits the superior 
powers for an extension of the lease of life, or "asks years" for whomsoever he likes, and 
increases life in fulness and in length for those who do his will! "Life comes from him, 



health is in him, Khunsu-Taht, the reckoner of time." This is because he personated that 
renewal of light and time which was monthly in the moon. Khunsu is the supreme healer 
amongst the Egyptian gods, more especially as the caster-out of demons and exorciser of 
evil spirits. He is called the driver-away of obsessing influences, the great god, chaser of 
possessors, and is literally the lunar deity who cures what are now termed lunatics. 
And it is in this character that the Christ of Luke is particularly portrayed. Chief of the 
suffering and afflicted who came to be healed by the Christ were the selhniaxomsnoi, or 
those who were lunatic. Curiously enough they came to him on the mountain, where the 
swine were feeding—that is, where the moon-god, Khunsu, holds the typical pig in his 
hand, denoting the casting out of Typhon, the Egyptian devil. For it is on the mount of the 
moon, or in the moon at full, that Khunsu is depicted as the driver-out of demons and 
expeller of the powers of darkness, the enemy of Sut- Typhon, the Egyptian Satan, whose 
presence is represented by the pig. 

In the Ute mythology, the Hero, as divine teacher of men, sits on the summit of a 
mountain to think. He says repeatedly— "I sat on the top of a mountain, and did think." In 
the Egyptian Mythos, preserved by the Gnostics, Hermes is the divine teacher, who not 
only thinks, but preaches the Sermon on the Mount. The transfiguration of Osiris in the 
mount of the moon occurred upon the 6th day of the new moon. This ascent of the lunar 
moon after six days is repeated in our gospels, and can be paralleled in a myth of the 
Buddha's transfiguration on the mount. Here, the six glories of the Buddha's head shone 
out with a radiance that blinded the sight of mortals and opened the spirit- vision, so that 
men could see spirits and spirits could see men. It was on the mount of the moon that 
Satan shewed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and at that 
height it may not have been necessary for him to have shewn them, as was explained by a 
German critic, "in a map." In Buddha's first temptation the dark Mara causes the earth to 
turn round, like the potter's wheel, for him to see all the kingdoms of the world, and he 
promises him that he shall rule the whole four quarters! The quarters are lunar. By 
comparing the various myths with the Gospel versions, we find that 

Sut and Horus = Satan and Jesus. 
Anup and Horus = John and Jesus. 
The Double Horus = Two-fold Christ. 
Khunsu = Christ 

The French retain a tradition that the man in the moon is Judas Iscariot, who was 
transported there for his treason to the Light of the World. But that story is pre-Christian, 
and was told at least some 6,000 years ago of Osiris and the Egyptian Judas, Sut, who 
was born twin with him of one mother, and who betrayed him, at the Last Supper, into 
the hands of the 72 Sami, or conspirators, who put him to death. Although the Mythos 
became solar, it was originally lunar, Osiris and Sut having been twin brothers in the 
moon. 

The Man in the moon is often charged with bad conduct towards his mother, sister, 
mother-in-law, or some other near female relation, on account of the natural origin in 
lunar phenomena. In these the moon was one as the moon, which was two-fold in sex, 
and three-fold in character, as mother, child, and adult male. Thus the child of the moon 
became the consort of his own mother! It could not be helped if there was to be any 
reproduction. He was compelled to be his own father! These relationships were 
repudiated by later sociology, and the primitive man in the moon got tabooed. Yet, in its 
latest, most inexplicable phase, this has become the central doctrine of the grossest 
superstition the world has seen, for these lunar phenomena and their humanly represented 
relationships, the incestuous included, are the very foundations of the Christian Trinity in 
Unity. Through ignorance of the symbolism, the simple representation of early time has 



become the most profound religious mystery in modern Luniolatry. The Roman Church, 
without being in any wise ashamed of the proof, pourtrays the Virgin Mary arrayed with 
the sun, and the horned moon at her feet, holding the lunar infant in her arms—as child 
and consort of the mother moon! The mother, child, and adult male, are fundamental; 
and, as Didron shows, God the Father hardly obtains a place in the Christian Iconography 
for nearly 1200 years. 

In this way it can be proved that our Christology is mummified mythology, and legendary 
lore, which have been palmed off upon us in the Old Testament and the New, as divine 
revelation uttered by the very voice of God. We have the same conversion of myth into 
history in the New Testament that there is in the Old—the one being effected in a 
supposed fulfilment of the other! Mythos and history have changed places once, and have 
to change them again before we can understand their right relationship, or real 
significance. In the various aspects of the divine child, born of the Virgin Mother,— the 
child of prophecy that Herod sought to slay,— the Christ in conflict with Satan as his 
natural enemy; the Christ who transforms in the waters, and is transfigured on the Mount; 
the Christ who is the caster-out of demons; the Christ who sends the devils into the herd 
of swine; the Christ who descends into Hades, or the earth, for three days, to come forth, 
like Jonah, or as Jonah, from the belly of Hades, or the great fish, the dragon of the 
waters; who breaks his way through the under-world, as the conqueror of darkness and 
disease, death and devil; as the saviour of souls, and leader into light; in all these, and 
other mythical phases, the Christ is none other than the soli-lunar hero, identical with 
Khunsu, with Samson, with Horus, with Heracles, with Krishna, with Jonah, or with our 
own familiar Jack the giant-killer. It is just as easy to prove that an historic Christianity 
never existed as it is to demonstrate that the mermaid, or the moon-calf, the sphinx, or the 
centaur, never lived. That is, by showing how they were composed as chimeras, and what 
they were intended for as ideographic types that never did, and never could, have a place, 
in natural history. For example, Pliny in his natural history describes the moon-calf 'as a 
monster that is engendered by a woman only. This chimera of superstition was originally 
the amorphous child of the mother-moon, when represented by the cow that gave birth to 
the moon-calf This moon-calf had the same origin and birth in phenomena as any other 
child of the Virgin Mother; and the mythical Christ is equally the monster, or chimera, 
that is engendered of the woman only. This is acknowledged when certain of the 
Christian Fathers accounted for the virgin motherhood of the historical Jesus, by 
asserting that certain females, like the vulture, could conceive without the male. For the 
vulture was the Egyptian type of the virgin-mother, Neith, who boasts in the inscription at 
Sais, that she did bring forth without the male! Hor- Apollo explains that the Egyptians 
delineated a vulture to signify the mother, because there is no male in this kind of 
creature, the female being impregnated by the wind— the wind that becomes the Holy 
Ghost, or gust, when Mary was overshadowed and insufflated. 

In his Apology, Justin Martyr tells the Romans that by "declaring the Logos, the firstbegotten 
of God, our Master Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin mother, without any 
human mixture, and to be crucified and dead, and to have risen again and ascended into 
heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove." 
That was true. So far as the mythos went the Christians followed and repeated it after the 
Pagans; but being ^initiated A-Gnostics they continued the mythos as a human history; 
and Justin is in the position of a simpleton who would persuade the learned men of Rome 
that the man in the moon is a human being, and that the celestial virgin had brought forth 
Time in person, as the child of the Eternal in a cave by the road-side near Bethlehem, by 
which means the non-existent had become humanly extant. Naturally, the knowers 
assumed the mental attitude of the right forefinger laid beside the nose! 
Such are the mythical bases upon which historic Christianity has reared its superstructure 
and built its Babel, with the view of reaching heaven by means of this, the loftiest 



monument of human folly ever raised on earth. Instead of mythology being a disease of 
language, it may be truly said that our theology is a disease of mythology. For myself, 
somehow or other, I have been deeply bitten with the desire to know and get at the very 
truth itself in these matters, even though it unveiled a face that looked sternly and 
destroyingly on some of my own dearest dreams. The other side of this desire for truth is 
a passionate hostility to those who are engaged in imposing this system of false teaching 
and swindle of salvation upon the ignorant and innocent at the national expense. As 
Celsus said of the Christian legends, made false to fact by an ignorant literalisation of the 
Gnosis,~"What nurse would not be ashamed to tell such fables to a child?" We also say 
with him to those who teach these old wives' fables as the Word of God,— "If you do not 
understand these things, be silent and conceal your ignorance." Any way, we must let go 
these gods of external phenomena, whether elemental, zootypological, or anthromorphic, 
if we would discover the divinity within, the mystical Christ of the Gnostics. And we can 
be none the poorer for losing that which never was a real possession, but only the shadow 
which deluded us with its seeming substance. To find the true we must first let go the 
false, and, to adapt a saying of Goethe's,— until we let the half gods go, the whole gods 
cannot come. 



APPENDIX. 

GREEK MYTHOLOGY AND THE GOD APOLLO. 

If the author of Juventus Mundi could but turn to Egypt, and make a first-hand 
acquaintanceship with its Symbolism, I think it would enlighten him more than any 
amount of listening round to those deluding Aryanists, respecting the origin, derivation 
and meaning of the Greek Mythology. 

For example, let us take the case of the god Apollo, who is related to the sun, and yet is 
not the sun itself. The Solarites can shed no light upon the darkness of Mr. Gladstone's 
difficulty. Writers who talk about mythology being a "disease of language," and know 
nothing of the gods as Celestial Intelligencers and time-keepers for men— chief of which 
was the sun, when the solar year had been made out; still earlier, the moon in its various 
phases— can lend us no aid in penetrating the secrets of this ancient science. "Solarworship" 
is good enough for them, but it will not explain mythology to us, or to itself. 
The child of the sun, re-born as Lord of Light in the moon, has never come within the 
range of their vision. Yet it is the simple fact in natural phenomena, which was 
represented mythically as the mode of making it known, of teaching it by means of the 
Gnosis or science of knowledge, as one of the mysteries, so soon as the discovery had 
once been made; and this is one of the most important of all the factors in mythology. 
I would suggest to Mr. Gladstone that the Greek Apollo is the same soli-lunar 
personification as is Thoth (Taht or Tehuti), and Khunsu (or the soli-lunar Horus), this is, 
the child of the supreme divinity in Egypt, the solar Ra, as his light by night— whilst he 
himself is the god who is hidden from sight in the under-world— his vice-dieu of the dark. 
Apollo is designated Lukgenes, or light-born. He is the image of the solar deity, the 
reflection of his glory in the lunar disk. 

Every phase of character in which Apollo appears, especially as represented by Homer, 
can be identified as pertaining to the male moon-god in Egypt, and the common basis of 
all may be found in those natural phenomena which are indicated in previous pages. In 
these natural phenomena, there is a common source, or foundation, to which the functions 



and attributes of Apollo and Taht (or the lunar Horus) can be referred, and by which the 
characters may be satisfactorily explained. The relationships of Apollo to Zeus, are 
exactly like those of Taht to Osiris, the supreme being. It is Taht who gives the Ma- 
Kheru, or Word of Truth, to the sun-god himself. As representative of Ra, his lunar logos, 
his light in the darkness, he is the Word whose promise is fulfilled and made truth by the 
Supreme Being, the sun that vivifies and verifies for ever. By his Word, he drives the 
enemies from the solar horizon, the insurgent powers of darkness which are fighting 
eternally against Ra. This is the character of Apollo as the defender of heaven against 
every assault. These powers of darkness, continually in revolt, ever warring with the sun, 
were called the giants which Taht-Khunsu, the giant-killer, slays by night, or during the 
lunar eclipse. Apollo also figures as the destroyer of the giants who were at war with 
heaven. It is said in the Egyptian texts that Ra created this god, Taht, as "a beautiful light 
to show the name of his evil enemy," i.e., Sut-Typhon, the eternal enemy of the sun. He 
held up the lamp by night that made the darkness visible; showed the name, the face, the 
personal presence, of his lurking foe. This also is a character of Apollo, as a 
representative and kind of deputy providence for Zeus. 

Apollo is god of the bow! Taht carries the bow of the crescent moon upon his head! Now 
the hero in the folk-tales who is always successful in drawing the great bow in the trial 
where all his competitors fail, is this god of the new moon, who alone can bend the bow, 
or bring the orb to the full circle of light once more. He can be identified in the Hindu 
form of the Mythos as Krishna "with the Bow of Hari." The crescent on the head of Taht 
is the bow prepared and ready to be drawn to the full against the power of night, and 
every form of evil that dwells in the darkness. Thus the lunar representative of Ra, with 
the bow of the young moon on his head, who prepares it month after month, and draws it 
to the full circle night after night, may be called the preparer of bows; and in Egyptian the 
name Apuru signifies a preparer of bows; it also means the Guide and Herald. As the u in 
Egyptian stands for o, and r for 1, we have Apuru= Apollo; the preparer of bows=the god 
of the bow as male divinity of the moon, who was the offspring of the sun and moon, the 
bowman of the solar god. Mr. Gladstone doubts whether the root of Apollo is Greek, and 
says he would not be surprised to find it Eastern. All the evidence tends to prove it 
Egyptian by nature and by name. Apollo is the god of knowledge, past, present, and to 
come; Taht is the deity of knowledge, past, present, and future—the founder of science, 
lord of the divine words, and secretary of the gods. Apollo is the god of poetry and music. 
So was Taht. He is the psalmist and singer; he is fabled to have torn out the sinews of 
Sut-Typhon to form the lyre—the lyre or harp with seven strings being an image of the 
new moon, like the bow. 

Apollo was the god of healing. Taht is the supreme physician and healer; "He who is the 
good Saviour," as it is written on a statue in the Leyden Museum. Apollo was the bringer 
of death in a form that was serene and beautiful, as became the lunar Lord of light, and 
enlarger of the lunar light to the full,— the character and function being afterwards applied 
to the light of life that suffered the passing eclipse of death. One name of Taht is Tekh, 
which signifies to be full! 

Of course the Greeks did not simply take over the Egyptian mythology intact, nor did 
they preserve the descent quite pure on any single line. In re-applying the legendary lore, 
derived from Egypt, to the same phenomena in nature, there would be considerable 
mixture, amalgamation, change of name, and consequent confusion. The blind Horus of 
Egypt reappears as the blind Orion in the Greek mythos. This is as certain as that the 
constellation of Orion, the star of Horus, was named Orion after Horus! His lunar 
relationship is shown by the recovery of his sight on exposing his eyeballs to the rays of 
the rising sun,— just as the eye of Horus was restored to him through the return of light at 
dawn. Horus in his lunar character is one with Taht and Khunsu in the other cults; that is, 
the lunar child may be Horus as son of Osiris, or Taht as the offspring of Ra, or Khunsu 



as the child of Amen; the myth being one in different religions. It follows that so far as 
Orion is identical with Horus he is also, or once was, identical in character with the lunar 
Apollo, and therefore like him of twin-birth with Artemis. Links of this lunar relationship 
remain. He lives and hunts along with Artemis when his sight has been recovered. He 
was beloved by Artemis and slain by her because he made an attempt upon her chastity— 
which is a common charge brought against the man in the moon mythology! 
The bringing on of the lunar mythos upon two different lines of descent, Apollo being a 
continuation of Taht-Khunsu, and Orion of Horus, would account for the later mixture in 
the relationship of the various personations—the fact in nature being represented under 
different names for the same character in mythology, as it had been previously in Egypt. 



MAN IN SEARCH OF HIS SOUL During Fifty Thousand Years, 
AND HOW HE FOUND IT! 

When Giorgione was challenged to paint a figure in a picture so that the spectator could 

see all round it, he overcame the difficulty by arranging a mirror at the back to reflect the 

other half of his subject! In like manner, we have to get all round our present subject with 

the aid of a reflector. This is to be discovered in some of the symbolic customs of the prehistoric 

races. The records of primitive and archaic men are only to be read in the things 

they did, and by aid of the signs they made, from before the time of written language and 

literature. 

The earliest human sensations, feelings, and thoughts, had to be expressed by actions 

long before they could be communicated in words. Gesture-language and Fetish images 

originated in this primitive mode of representation; and we have now to penetrate the 

significance of the actions, and interpret the types employed in a font indefinitely earlier 

than that of letters! The performers cannot tell us directly what they meant when so many 

mysterious things were done; they can only make signs to us on certain matters, and we 

have to translate their dumb show as best we can! 

Sir John Lubbock says the lower forms of religion are almost independent of prayer, but 

he does not take into account the fact that long before prayer could be uttered verbally, it 

was performed and acted by means of sign-language, which we have to read in ancient 

customs and primitive memorials of the fact. 

For example, when a crooked pin is thrown into the "Wishing Well" as an invocation to 

the invisible powers, the bent pin is a prayer made permanent in a visible figure, which is 

extant among the Egyptian hieroglyphics, as the Uten, a twisted piece of metal, signifying 

an offering. It was as much the sign of prayer as are the clasped hands, or the body 

crouching down on bended knees, or the supplication in spoken words. We have to read it 

as we would a gesture-sign. It is a sign in gesture-language made to the unseen powers 

whether for good luck or bad! So when the ear was pierced by the worshipper, as a 

religious rite, it was a primitive mode of appeal to the deity as the Hearer or Judge, like 

the god Atum, who was the first Hearer in heaven, among the Egyptian gods. Fortunately, 

the primitive races of the world, such as the Blacks in Africa and Australia, still continue 

the customs, think the thoughts, repeat the rites, employ the signs, erect the memorials, 

and revere the images that were the Fetishes of the human infancy. These are preserved 

even by those who can give no account of their origin in the past or their significance in 

the present, but who simply and sacredly repeat them as a matter of following the 

example and treading in the track of their forefathers! Now Egypt, which I look upon as 

the living consciousness of Africa, continued to remember, and has left a written record 

of what was meant by these primitive practices and fetish figures; and in one aspect of the 



subject, that of the burial customs, the Egyptian Bible, or Book of the Dead, becomes a 
living tongue in the mouth of Death itself, which enables us to interpret the earlier and 
most ancient typology of the bone-caves found in other parts of the world. 
The Bongo, Bechuana, and other Inner African tribes of to-day, still prepare their dying 
relatives for the grave whilst the body is warm and flexible, by pressing the head forward 
upon the knees, which are bent up against the breast, with the legs flexed upon the thighs. 
The African customs were continued on the American continent, where they are still 
extant. The ancient Peruvian mummies, or preserved bodies were similarly, but more 
perfectly prepared for the last abode on earth. The Comanches, the Pimas of Arizona, and 
other Red Indian tribes, still prepare their dead for burial in this primitive way. 
Sometimes a net is thrown over the body of the dying, and as the hold on life is gradually 
relaxed, the net is drawn tighter and tighter until the body is bound up to become rigid in 
that shape for burial. In this position the most ancient form of the mummy is still made 
almost alive. And that was the most ancient mode of burial known on earth. It can be 
traced back in Europe to the time of the Palaeolithic or first Stone Age; and there are data 
extant which carry that age and its customs back (in round numbers) for some 50,000 
years. The custom was common amongst the most primitive races of the world, including 
the Blacks of the southern hemisphere, whether they committed the mummy to the earth, 
or, like the Tasmanians and Maori, concealed it in the hollow bole of a tree. 
Next, when we learn that the primary model of the tomb was the mother's womb, —and 
this fact is proved by the figures of the Cairns; and by the tree, the coffin, and the vase 
with female breasts, being types of the mythical Great Mother of Life; and when the 
identity of womb and tomb is indicated, as it is, by many pre-historic names; and further, 
when we have compared the images interred with the corpse, we learn for certain that in 
burying the dead in such a fashion, Primitive Man was preparing the mummy in the 
likeness of the foetal embryo, or child in utero. In fact, he was burying it for a future 
birth! 

We often hear of our "Mother Earth"~and the uterine formation of certain cairns in 
Britain can be identified by means of Egyptian hieroglyphics and symbols, which prove 
that the tomb was a representative image of the maternal birthplace. Therefore, the dead, 
some 50,000 years ago, were buried with an idea of reproduction for another life. This 
mother-mould of the beginning is also shown by the "Navel-mounds" of the Red Men in 
America, the Nabhi-Yoni images of the Hindus, and the Nave of the Church; by the 
Mam-Tor, a bosom-shaped hill, and the Mamsie, a Scottish Tumulus, in which the dead 
were returned to the Great Mother, accompanied by various types belonging to the 
symbolism of re-birth. The Egyptian dead were buried in the Mam-Mesi, or Meskhen. 
Both names literally denote the re-birthplace of the mummy. The Meskhen is also 
European. The ancient Midden, in which the bones of the dead were preserved, was 
known as the Miskin. Miskin-Belac, in Brittany, is also called Cairn-Belac, the terms 
being convertible. 

We now know that all descent was first traced from the Mother alone, who survived as 
the Virgin Mother in mythology, whose son was her own consort; and the earliest form of 
the burial-place was simply feminine. Later on the male type of the producer was added, 
and both sexes are then represented in the place of burial as the place of re-birth. In 
Egyptian tombs the male emblem is a sign of rising again, or of being re-erected (as they 
expressed it) from the female place of re-birth. And that emblem has been found in Italy, 
buried beneath ten feet of slowly-accreted Stalagmite—a register, probably, of 50,000 
years. To this day the Chinese seek for a burial-place just where the male and female 
features of the ground are most perfectly pourtrayed in a natural configuration and 
combination of hollow and mount. It has never yet been determined by philologists 
whether the British word "Combe" means a hollow between two hills, or the hill itself. 
Many Combes are found in valleys, whereas Black Combe is a mountain. The fact is, the 



complete type includes both sexes. This teaches us that the cairn was double, and that the 
hollow below was the feminine feature, and the mound erected above was masculine. 
This bi-sexual type of the burial-place was continued in Egypt, with its Well below and 
conical heap above, being a Colossal stone Cairn; and the dual type culminates at last in 
the nave and spire of the Church, which perpetuate the same sexual symbols as the 
Argha-Yoni or the Nabhi-Yoni of those benighted Hindoos, who are denounced by our 
missionaries for their gross idolatry. It was not "Idolomania," but a primitive kind of 
symbolism, a natural mode of thinging their thoughts. This doubles the proof that the 
dead were buried with the idea of being reproduced; and this Parental imagery was 
employed to continue and convey such an idea to the living. 
It is here, then, at the outset, that we should have to seek for the true origin of those 
Phallic symbols or sexual images which are found scattered the world over, the types of 
production having been adopted from nature and perpetuated by the primitive builders in 
all lands as symbols of reproduction for a future life. Such emblems were no more set up 
at first as objects of worship or provocation to lasciviousness than the earliest races of 
men went naked on purpose to display their nudity as an incentive to animal desire. Nor 
was there any abasement of nature in these things, the human status at the time being too 
primitive even for any fig-leaf kind of consciousness or shame induced by clothing. 
Neither were these monuments at all directly related to the religious sentiment. That only 
comes in here with the aspiration for another life and yearning after the second birth. The 
religious sentiment did not originate in procreation for this life, but in reproduction for 
the next; and the true sacredness was conferred on the cairns, mounds, navels, and 
bosom-shaped hills by the burial of the Dead. For it is certain that these types of birth 
whether found in Nature or erected by Art, are associated in all lands with the places of 
burial, or they constitute the sepulchre itself, just as the Church is still the burial-place, or 
stands amid the Graves of the Dead. Hottentot or British Cairns, Indian Navel -Mounds, 
Hindu Dagobas, Irish Round Towers, and Egyptian Pyramids and Obelisks, with the 
Teba or female Ark at the base, were all erected with one meaning, and each according to 
the same primitive typology of a resurrection. 

"Going to the Stones" preceded going to Church, and the people went to them because 
their dead were buried in or around these, the earliest Shrines. The Memorial Stones were 
sacred to the dead from the first, as the latest grave-stone is to-day. Some of the stones 
were carried from land to land and called the Bringers of Immortality. In support of my 
theory that the Phallic Imagery was perpetuated for symbolic uses, and not for direct 
worship, I would point to the Umbilicus or Navel type, which, for aught we know to the 
contrary, may be earlier than the Phallic or Sexual Images, because the Navel unites both 
sexes under one sign. Be this as it may, the primitive mode of sepulture, the formation of 
the earliest tomb, together with the Monuments reared above, are all founded on the 
natural organs of the reproductive system, and, architecturally, the so-called Phallic faith 
resolves itself into an objective imitation of the parts of the human body which are 
devoted to re-birth,~including the bos umbilicus. Re-birth is the ideal demonstrated by 
the typical use made of these burial stones in passing the bodies of persons through the 
various holes and apertures in them at the time of initiation into the mysteries, or the 
transformation of the Boy into the Man; and re-birth being the fact signified, the Serpentshaped 
Mound was also a tomb, and the living Tree a Coffin, because the Tree and 
Serpent were natural emblems of renewal or re-birth. 

This Natural Genesis will likewise account for the Mythical Great Mother, who was the 
earliest of all Divinities in all lands, —being portrayed in the image of the reproducer that 
unites both Father and Mother in one person, and who survives to-day as the Mother- 
Church. 

Moreover, the emblems buried with the dead from the earliest times are ideographic 
symbols of perpetuation and reproduction for the life to come. The figure of an eye was 



common in the tombs of Egypt. The name of it, "Uta," signifies salvation; and to be 
saved was to be preserved as a mummy waiting to be reproduced or transformed for 
another life. The eye being a mirror that reflects the image, it was adopted as a type of 
repetition and reproduction. Thus the Eye of Horus is the Mother of Horus, and the shoot 
of new life in the potato comes from the "eye"— as the place of reproduction. One word 
serves for both eye and seed in the Ute language. The Egyptians fed the eye with oil. And 
filling the "Eye of Horus" is synonymous with bringing an offering of sacred oil. The eye 
being the lamp of light to the body, it was supplied with that which would produce and 
reproduce the light. Thus, by aid of Egypt, we can understand why the primitive race in 
Britain, and still further north, were accustomed to fill the cups and eyes carved on the 
cap-stones that covered their buried dead with offerings of fat. They were filling the lamp 
of light for the gloom of the grave, and feeding the eye as an emblem of repetition or 
reproduction. The symbolism still survives when candles are placed in the hands of the 
corpse, or left with the dead in the tomb. And in ancient Egypt the candle was 
synonymous with reproduction. 

It is an extant custom, both with the Kaffirs and the English, to cut the hair from the tail 
of a calf when it is being weaned, and stuff it into the ear of its mother. The hair being a 
symbol of reproduction, the action denotes a desire for plenty of milk or future progeny, 
whilst stuffing it into the ear signifies a wish that the prayer may be heard. A drink on the 
morning after being intoxicated is called "a hair of the dog that bit you"! This means a 
repetition of the dose; and as a symbol of reproduction, hair, in one shape or another, was 
buried with the dead. Of course the primary type of hair is the skin—in which the dead 
were wrapped for preservation, transformation, and rebirth. In the Egyptian Ritual the 
deceased says to his God, "Thou makest for me a skin." This God is characterized as the 
"Lord of the numerous transformations of the skin," which had become a type of renewal, 
on account of its shedding and renewing the hair. The skin is needed because he has to 
pass the waylayers who cause annihilation to those who are enveloped. The later shoe, 
following the skin, is also a type of renewal and reproduction; as such it was placed on 
the feet of the dead, and is still thrown for good luck after the newly married pair— good 
luck meaning plenty of progeny. The horn of the stag or reindeer was likewise a type of 
renewal, coming of itself, as does the hair of the skin. Hor- Apollo tells us the stag's horn 
was a symbol of permanence, because of its annual self-reproduction. And when the 
Greenlander has suffered from an exhausting illness, and he recovers his health, he is said 
to have lost his former soul, and to have had it replaced by that of a young child or a 
reindeer. In the bone-caves of France adult skulls have been discovered which were 
trepanned in the life-time of the owners; and into these the bones of young children had 
been inserted after death— these being typical of rejuvenescence and renewal from 
childhood— as we learn from the hieroglyphics of Egypt. 

In all likelihood the Dog was the first animal to come under the dominion of man, his 
earliest four-footed friend; his primary ally in the work of progress and civilization. He 
hunted for the men of the Kitchen-middens; he was the guide and guard of man in the 
palaeolithic age, and he was sacrificed to become the typical guide of the poor cavedwellers 
when they got benighted in the dark of death. The bones of the dog have been 
found buried with the human skeleton in a very ancient cave of the Pyrenees; in Belgium; 
and in Britain; showing that at a period most remote the dog was looked upon as a kind of 
Psychopompus, an intelligent shower of the way, like Sut-Anup, the golden dog or jackal 
of Egypt, and Hermes in Greece,— the Dog-star in the dark of death— a guide to show the 
way. "I have provided myself with a dog's head, " says the Egyptian deceased in passing 
through the 10th gate of Elysium. In like manner English bishops used to be buried with a 
dog at their feet in the coffin. They, too, were provided with a dog's head— or a dog to 
show them the way! Of course the dog would not have been needed as a typical guide to 
show them the way if it had not been believed or assumed that there was a way through 



the dark valley of the dead! This conclusion that there was a door on the other side of the 
grave—as proved by the types and customs—had been reached by the men of the bonecaves 
in all probability more than 50,000 years ago! 

How, then, did primitive or archaic man attain that certainty of foothold in the dark void 
implied by these burial customs, and this typology of the tomb, which certainly was felt 
by many of the pre-historic races, including the Black Man, the Maori, and the Red Man, 
who has no doubt about living on in his happy hunting grounds above? whereas so many 
of our own race to-day are still trying mentally to take that step in the dark, and stumble, 
because they can find neither foothold nor stair. The question is not to be answered by 
supposing there was any subjective revelation made to primitive man, which showed him 
once for all that he was an immortal being, formed in the image of God! It has taken me 
many years of ceaseless research to learn for myself how lowly and limited, but how 
natural was the revelation made to primitive man; we shall have to grope on our hands 
and knees at times to read it. Nor can the subject be approached by any supposition that 
early man began by conceiving the existence of an immortal soul. Modern 
metaphysicians may talk glibly enough about "concepts of the Infinite," of the "one God," 
of a "soul," or of "pure spirit;" but primitive man was not a metaphysician, nor the victim 
of an abysmal subjectivity. That disease is comparatively modern, and the modern 
metaphysician will be the last man to enter into the mind of primitive men. 
When we have ransacked the myths of the world, and the legends of its earliest races, we 
can find no such thing anywhere as a beginning with abstract conceptions! But there is 
absolute proof everywhere that man founded at first upon his observations of objective 
phenomena. Primitive man was not a theorist or dealer in Ideal notions, not the kind of 
man to whom Ideas are Realities, but a stubborn positivist, limited as a limpet, and 
holding on as hard and fast to the hard rock of his facts. The nebulosity of metaphysic is 
altogether a later product. My contention is that the invisible world first demonstrated its 
existence to the early cave-dwellers of the human mind by becoming visible to them. It 
did not dawn on them from any sudden illumination within, nor waken to consciousness 
as a memory of immortality. Conception did not precede the act of begettal. Nor did they 
evolve the ghost-idea without the ghost itself. The pretensions and impostures of modern 
theology have tended to make these simple naturalists of the past look like impostors too, 
although they were not; at least they are not in the eyes of those who are acquainted with 
the abnormal phenomena occurring in our own time, which enable us to understand the 
same phenomena as a factor of knowledge and religion in the past. I say knowledge, for 
in his way pre-historic man was a Gnostic; and the Gnostics founded their religion from 
the first upon knowledge. By means of knowledge they attained their truth. It appears as 
first sight as if the ancients, having identified the intelligence or nous in man, thought it 
could be fed forever by the knowledge accumulated in this life. The Esoteric Buddhist 
still expects a perpetuity of existence by means of knowledge, or the Gnosis. In the 
Egyptian Book of the Dead the deceased makes his way from stage to stage of his 
progress by what he knows. He asserts his right of way by proclaiming: "I am the one 
who knows," "I am the Gnostic, " "I have come," he exclaims, "having the writing"— the 
proof. Certain papyri assured a passage, and "prevailing by his papyrus," like Christian 
with his roll, is a title of the deceased. If he knows the first chapter of the Ritual in this 
life the spirit of the deceased can come forth every day as he wishes, and not be turned 
back, i.e., if he possesses the knowledge of facts, which were demonstrated by the ancient 
Spiritualism. He is shown in the process of creating his eternal soul, by means of the 
Gnosis, or books of knowledge, those of Taht-Hermes. He cries: "Let me come! Let me 
spiritualise myself! Let me make myself into a soul! Prevail and prepare myself by the 
writings of Hermes!" or the Gnosis. 

The immortal nature of the Soul having been demonstrated in the Mysteries, a knowledge 
of those Mysteries was sufficient to ensure a safe passage through the dark of death, and 



a sure triumph over all opposing powers, to those who had not the Vision. 

"By means of wisdom," says the wise man in the Apocrypha, "I shall attain immortality;" 

and "to be allied into Wisdom is immortality." To know was salvation. Acquiring this 

wisdom is described in Revelation as eating a little book on purpose to be in the spirit—or 

be born again in the spirit, or in the Christ, as Paul has it—or to prophesy, or to know how 

to be entranced, and enter spirit-world as a spirit, for that is the ultimate fact. Ireneeus 

says of the Gnostics: "They affirm that the Inner and Spiritual man is redeemed by means 

of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand in need 

of nothing else, for this is the true redemption," hence they repudiated the Christian 

Salvation by faith. (Irenaeus, B. I., chap. xxi. 4.) "The souls which possessed the saving 

seed of Wisdom were considered superior to all others, and the Gnostics held these to be 

the souls of prophets, kings, and priests, who were consequently endowed with a nature 

loftily transcendent. They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge 

must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all." "For it is otherwise 

impossible to find entrance within the Pleroma." (Ireneeus, B. I., chap. xxi. 2.) In our day 

such persons are sometimes called Mediums or Sensitives; in India they are the Adepts in 

the most hidden mysteries. But this Gnosis by which the deceased in the Ritual prevailed 

over the destroyers of form, the extinguishers of breath, eclipsers of the astral shade, or 

the stealers of memory— for these are among the devourers named— this gnosis of 

redemption and salvation, the gnosis of enduring life, was not merely information or 

knowledge in our modern sense. It was the gnosis of the mysteries, and all that was 

therein represented. The ancient wisdom (unlike the modern) included a knowledge of 

trance-conditions, from which was derived the Egyptian doctrine of spiritual 

transformation. This passed on into the Christian doctrine of conversion, and then the 

fundamental facts were lost sight of, or cast out and done with. The adepts had learned 

how to transform themselves into spirits, and enter spirit-world as spirits among spirits, 

or as was sometimes said in the Totemic transformations, to enter the bodies of beasts— a 

survival of which we have in the Were-wolf. Hermes describes the abnormal, or trancecondition, 

as a divine silence, and the rest of all the senses! He says: "It looseth the soul 

from the bodily senses and motions, it draweth it from the body, and changeth it wholly 

into the essence of a god." Then, says Hermes, "the soul cometh to the eighth nature, and 

having its proper power, it can converse (or enter into spiritual intercourse) with the 

powers that are above the eighth nature." So Nirvana becomes a present possession to the 

Esoteric Buddhist, because in trance he can enter the eternal state. 

This Gnosis included that mystery of transformation which was the change spoken of by 

Paul, when he exclaimed— "Behold, I tell you a mystery," "We shall not entirely sleep, we 

shall be transformed! " according to the mystery that was revealed to him in the state of 

trance. This was the transformation which finally established the existence of a spiritual 

entity that could be detached, more or less, from the bodily conditions for the time being 

in life, and, as was finally held, for evermore in death. This mystery of regeneration was 

visibly enacted in life, and taught by the transformers in the early Totemic, and later 

religious, mysteries. 

Now, in discussing the origin of religious "ideas," writers, as a rule, know nothing 

whatever of this rootage in the mysteries of abnormal experience; whereas it is 

impossible to determine anything fundamental until this dark continent has been explored 

by those who have adequate knowledge of the facts that were familiar to the primitive 

races of men, and upon which the Gnostic religions were universally founded. 

Bastian tells us how the African Cazembe, or fetish-priest, regards himself as Immortal 

by reason of this power of transformation in trance. The Dacotah medicine-men can 

transform themselves, and enter into conscious relationship and alliance with mighty 

spirits, whose powers they are thus able to make their own. They can also summon 

spirits, and compel them to appear for others to see. The Egyptian Magi, the wise men 



and pure Intelligences, have the Phoenix, the bird of transformation in death, for their 
ideographic sign, which shows that the ultimate nature of their wisdom, as seers or magi, 
was based on these abnormal conditions of seership! What do you think is the use of 
telling the adept, whether the Hindu Buddhist, the African Seer, or the Finnic Magician, 
who experiences his "Tulla-intoon," or supra-human ecstasy, that he must live by faith, or 
be saved by belief? He will reply that he lives by knowledge, and walks by the open 
sight; and that another life is thus demonstrated to him in this. As for death, the practical 
Gnostic will tell you, he sees through it, and death itself is no more for him! Such have no 
doubt, because they know. The Mosaic and other sacred writings contain no annunciation 
of a mere doctrine of immortality, and the fact has excited constant wonder amongst the 
uninstructed. But the subject was not told of old, as matter of written precepts, but as 
matter of fact; it was a natural reality, not a manufactured idealism. It was not the 
promise of immortality that was set forth, or needed, when a demonstration was 
considered attainable in the mysteries of the abnormal human conditions, which were 
once common enough to be considered a known part of nature! You have got the Mosaic 
writings, but without the older facts that were concealed at their foundations. This is the 
supreme secret of all secrets in the Gnosis of the most hidden mysteries—only to be 
fathomed by those who could enter the abnormal conditions, and be as spirits among 
spirits; only to be accepted by means of knowledge. In India to-day the stage of perfect 
adultship includes, even if it does not absolutely consist in, the power of transformation 
which occurs in trance, or in the perfect blending of the normal and abnormal faculties, 
so that, like Swedenborg, the Adepts can live and move and have their being in two 
worlds at once. It was by this transformation that our predecessors of thousands of years 
ago discovered their immortal soul, or link of continuity, through spirit-awakenment, 
produced consciously by various methods of attaining the trance conditions. And in this 
way the dust of death was first set a-sparkle, and the gloom of the grave was brightened, 
and grew transparent, with the luminous form of what the Egyptians called the Osirified 
deceased, or the Ka image of the spiritual self, the glorified Eidolon of man, which was 
visible to their seers in this life. None but a Spiritualist can possibly comprehend the 
customs, practices, and beliefs of the primitive Spiritualists in times past. They were 
genuine interrogators of Nature, however limited their knowledge. But they made much 
of that which the science of to-day is inclined to make so little of, or to pooh-pooh 
altogether in its ignorance of the value of the pre-historic past of man, and the foundation 
of religious beliefs. 

Did you ever read by the light of a glow-worm laid on the page of a book? I have so read 
in the dark. And next morning, by the clearer light of open day, found my tiny lamp had 
gone out; there was no glow whatever; it was nothing more than a little gray worm! My 
reading must surely have been hallucination, the merest illusion of the night, in the face 
of this common daylight fact, to which every person could testify, that the thing did not 
shine by day! Spiritualism is that little luminous worm, which has shone with its tiny 
lamp divinely lit through all the darkness of the past. Many of the earlier races learned to 
read a page or two in the Book of Nature by the light of it. I have read some curious 
leaves by means of this little night-light. Yet the non-Spiritualist will take up the glowworm 
in the broad day-light of our age and show the on-looker that it has no lamp, that it 
never did shine except as a glamour of deception and illusion in the eyes of superstition. 
For all that, we know it to be a glow-worm still, which goes on shining through the 
gloom. By the light of this we are, for the first time, able to see through many mysteries 
of the past, and make out the features of primitive facts, which have been almost effaced 
or overgrown with fable. Moreover, it has out-lived the long night of the past, and 
weathered all the winds of persecution; it shines on with the enlarging lustre of an evergrowing 
light, and at last our little glow-worm is growing luminous by day. It has had a 
hard struggle for life, more especially during the Christian era, but it would have been 



strange if that could have been put to death here which puts an end to death itself 
hereafter. 

The earliest known form of the priest and the prophet was the medium, or seer. Professor 
Huxley is quite right in affirming that, although he has little use for the fact in his system 
of interpretation. "Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he 
spake—'Come, and let us go to the seer, 1 for he that is called a prophet was aforetime 
called a seer." And the Lord might be consulted cheaply in this way for the small sum of 
sixpence three-farthings. They seem to have paid mediums even worse then than the 
world does now-a-days. 

Siberian Shamanism is a survival of the most primitive kind of Spiritualism, based on 
mediumship and abnormal phenomena. It has no system of religion or ethics; no ritual, 
precepts, or dogmas; and no definite theology. The Shaman can visit spirit-world, and the 
spirits can come to him, speak through him, or become visible at times through his 
presence. That is its claim, and the sum-total of its pretentions. The Shaman of the Finns 
induces the super-normal ecstasy, called the "Tulla-intoon," with the ostensible object of 
becoming—as they phrase it— "The likeness of the spirit that is in possession of him." We 
now consider that such transformations do constantly occur, according to a likeness 
known to the observers, which was previously unknown to the medium. 
The Tohunga or priest of the Maoris is their medium for spirit intercourse. 
In Loango, when an adult is about to adopt a new fetish image, the Ganga or priest 
mesmerizes the postulant to consult him in the trance condition. He listens to the words 
uttered by the ecstatic, and then the choice is determined by what the somnambule says. 
The same practice is, or was, extant among the Acageman Indians. One of the negro 
methods of treatment, says Bastian, would almost appear to have been plagiarised from 
our animal magnetisers. In their system it is called Dorsal manipulation, and its purpose 
is to re-isolate the somnambulic subject after contact with the Cazembe or magician, and, 
as they say, for fear that the superabundance of his magical power should otherwise 
annihilate the victim or the subject, which looks as if they knew more than we do about 
matters perplexing us to-day. For this practice has the appearance of their being 
consciously engaged in returning some of the vitality of which the person has been 
deprived in producing the phenomena of the abnormal state. The West African Indians 
look to their mediums or magicians for protection against ghosts in general, and pay them 
to keep the apparitions away. The mediums, wizards, sorcerers, shamans, adepts, and 
others, who had the power of going out of the body in this life, were feared all the more 
after death by many tribes, because they had demonstrated some of the facts which 
created such fear and terror in the living; and had also been their exorcists and layers of 
the ghost. I do not suppose that Mr. Herbert Spenser will have included this fact amongst 
the origins of ecclesiastical institutions; yet it is a fact that the modern fiction of the everliving 
one (in its secondary phase) is founded on medium-ship. It is said "the king never 
dies." The Egyptian king, or ank, was the "ever-living one" on this mystical ground. So 
was it with the inner African medicine-man— in a sense which is only to be understood by 
means of the transformation and transmigration which occurs in trance. We can adduce 
proof positive that immortality or continuity was originally demonstrated by means of 
these phenomena, and that in this way pre-historic man first found his enduring soul, 
because it was a common article of faith that only the chiefs, the seers, prophets, and 
kings of men, could or did obtain immortality— that is, the men who demonstrated it. 
These are the born immortals, the superior souls spoken of by Hermes and by the 
Gnostics, which possessed the saving seed of wisdom within themselves; and who were 
of a nature loftily transcendent. 

There is a class, if not the earliest class, of chiefs or supreme beings amongst men, who 
were first recognized as the ever-living ones, the immortals, because they were the 
mediums for spirit intercourse— mediators between the two worlds. With the Tonguans today 



it is only the chiefs who have power to return after death and inspire the mediums; 
not the souls of the common people who had been without the abnormal power in this 
life. The Fijians maintain that only the few are immortal Spirits. Hence the desire to 
obtain such a condition, and possess that knowledge of it which was taught in the 
Mysteries. Here, also, we get back to the origin of conditional or potential immortality, as 
taught by the Gnostics. 

Whatsoever secret Brotherhoods there may be of Hindu Mahatmas or Tibetan Adepts, 
such fraternities are known to be extant in Africa, and they are Spiritualistic. In Cabende 
and Loango there are secret associations of the Fetishmen or mediums. They constitute a 
fraternity—the brothers—and form a society apart— an Order, whose secrets are only 
known to the initiated, and whose mysterious faculties are the terrors of the uninitiated. 
Bastian describes the King of Bamba as dwelling isolated in his banza in an almost 
inaccessible mountain district, at the head of one of those systems of religious mystery 
which exercise an overwhelming influence amongst the natives along the West Coast of 
Africa. New members are admitted into these Brotherhoods only after a probation often 
years. They must prepare themselves by fasting, by drinking, by inhaling narcotics; they 
must give proofs of being ecstatic or mediums, by becoming frantic in the sacred dances, 
and by seeing in the state of trance! These are the Secret Societies of savage mediumship. 
The Red Men also had their brotherhoods of the adepts. The "Friendly Society of the 
Spirit" is mentioned by Carver. This was an association of Spiritualists who were 
Mediums, Magicians, or Fetish Priests. Carver saw an elderly member of this 
brotherhood throw a bean at a young man who was a candidate for election into the 
society, whereupon he instantly fell motionless, as if he had been shot, and remained for a 
long time in trance. One of three such societies among the American Indians is that of the 
Meda or Mediums; the chief festival of the order being that ofMedawin. At this festival 
songs are sung, which are only recorded in symbolical pictures that have been preserved 
from time immemorial, and can only be read by the few who have been made the 
guardians of this secret language. 

Any way, these primitive Spiritualists were terribly in earnest in their modes of overleaping 
the ordinary barriers of life,— of forcing open the very door of death, and taking 
the other world by storm. They exhausted themselves in all manner of ways,— by hideous 
howling, partial strangulation, furious dancing, shuddering ecstasies, cutting, wounding, 
and bleeding, until they swooned into the coveted state of inner consciousness, which 
may be attained in such a variety of ways,— the crudest methods having been discovered 
first. An ancient Indian seer, says Mr. Tylor, would fast for seven days, to purge his 
vision for spiritual seeing. And he makes merry over all this light-headed business. It 
certainly would be a very round-about way of going to work on the theory of imposture 
put forth by the ignorant pretenders to knowledge in our day. And here a curious sidelight 
may be allowed to glance on this subject. Our missionaries have recorded numerous 
instances in which native mediums— i.e., supposed practitioners of imposture, have been 
converted to Christianity. The men who converted them thought they were impostors. But 
though they were taught to look with horror and loathing on their old practices as 
damnable, there is no instance of their recanting and denouncing their spirit-intercourse 
as trickery, or of pleading imposture, or even self-deception, which would have been so 
acceptable a solution to the missionaries of the mysterious manifestations. On the 
contrary, they have always solemnly affirmed the genuineness of the phenomena. Close 
observers, like Mariner, Williams, and Moerenhout, strenuously repudiate the theory of 
imposture. The Zulus say the continually stuffed body cannot see secret things; and the 
world, in general, has never shown much faith in fat prophets or poets. It evidently 
believes in thinness and suffering as good for them, and has always done its best to 
inspire them with sufficient starvation. It believes in purity by purging. Apollonius of 
Tyana declared that his power of prophecy was not due to magic or stimulation of the 



soul, but simply to his abstinence from animal food enhancing the receptive conditions. 
There have been many ways of reaching the other world, however, besides starving. We 
know the Hindus, the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Egyptians were acquainted with animal 
magnetism. The Egyptians and Scythians also made use of Indian Hemp for their spiritual 
sleepers. Indian soothsayers still prepare themselves with the sweating bath for their 
ecstatic condition, in which the spirits make their communications to the bystanders. The 
Malay retires to the desert to fast and pray, in order that he may attain the abnormal 
condition. The Zulu doctor fasts, suffers, castigates himself, till he swoons into the state 
of trance in which he carries on his spirit communication. Aristophanes wittily ridicules 
spirit communication in representing the cowardly character Pisander as going to a 
Necromancer and asking to be shown his own soul, which had long since departed and 
left him only a breathing body. We also find that ^Elian has a gird at the Hindu mode of 
inducing the sacred sleep. He says the followers of Apis have a better method of getting 
at the spirit world. Apis is an excellent interpreter of futurity. He does not employ virgins 
and old women sitting on a tripod, nor require that they should be intoxicated with the 
sacred potion. In the Persian Bahman Yasht, the god Ahura-Mazda throws Zarathustra 
into the clairvoyante trance by giving him some magnetised water to drink. 
We have been untruly taught, by those who knew no better, that this was all a delusion of 
the past; but the fact is that many thousands of years ago our progenitors had become 
sufficiently familiar with the business they were about. The African priests, says Bastian, 
are profoundly versed in the science of ghostly apparitions. The spirit-seers of America 
might get from African professors many practical rules for intercourse with spirits. 
Whereas the travellers and missionaries generally who report on their mysteries are 
entirely ignorant that spiritual manifestations and clairvoyante vision were natural 
realities in the past as they are verifiable in the present. 

For example, the Serpent- Wisdom, or wisdom of the serpent, played an important part in 
the ancient mysteries. The "way of a serpent" and the workmanship are amongst the most 
amazing in universal nature. Without hands it can climb trees and catch the agile ape. 
Without fins it can outswim the fish. It has no legs, and the human foot cannot match it in 
fleetness. Death is in its coil for the bird on the wing, which the springing reptile will 
snatch out of its element. As a type of elemental power it has no equal; hence it was the 
supreme fetish in Egypt, worn as the forefront of the gods. "Wise as the serpent" is a 
saying; but the wisdom of the serpent has to be interpreted. It was not merely the 
representative of elemental power, but of mind or mental influence in the primitive sense. 
The serpent is the Mesmerist and magician of the animal world. With its magnetic eyes it 
has the power to fascinate, paralyse, and draw the prey to its deadly mouth. It probably 
evoked the earliest idea of magical influence, and gave to man his fist lessons in animal 
magnetism. No disk of the Hypnotist, or navel of Vishnu, no look of the Mesmerist, has 
any such power as the gaze of the serpent in inducing the comatose condition. I have seen 
a sensitive person mesmerised by it almost instantaneously. A traveller has described his 
sensations as he sank deeper and deeper into the somnambulic sleep under its fatally 
fascinating influence. And when the shot was fired which arrested the serpent's charm 
and set him free, he felt the blow as if he had been struck by the bullet. In the Avesta the 
look of the serpent is synonymous with the most paralysing and deadly opposition. The 
serpent and charming are synonymous. In the Egyptian Ritual a deluding snake named 
Ruhak is the Great Charmer, or fascinator that draws the victim to its mouth with the 
magic power of its eyes. The speaker exclaims, "Go back, Ruhak, fascinating, or striking 
cold with the eyes." The supreme mode of exhibiting mental power is by Magic, and that 
is represented as charming the serpent. "These are the gods," it is said in the Texts, "who 
charm for Har-Khuti in the lower world—they charm Apap for him." Apap is the giant 
serpent of darkness, who is the eternal enemy of the sun. They cry, "Oh, impious Apap! 
thou art charmed by us through the means of what is in our hands." That is, by a magic 



wand carried in the hands of the charmers. 

Primitive man must have had a long, hard wrestle for supremacy before he could have 
mesmerised and mastered his old subtle enemy, the serpent, or charmed his charmer, as 
he learned to do at last, when he became the serpent-charmer, which he ultimately did. 
Africans to-day will magnetise a serpent with a few passes an make it stiff as a stick. And 
in this character we find his figure proudly set in heaven, for the first star in Ophiuchus is 
known in Arabic as Ras-al-Hawwa, the head of the serpent-charmer. Ophiuchus is not 
merely the serpent-holder, he is the serpent-charmer. The Egyptian serpent-headed 
goddess Heh is called the "Maker of invisible existences apparent," which seems to 
characterise the serpent as the revealer of an unseen world—this it was, as the magnetiser 
of man—and hence the serpent type of Wisdom. Hea, the Akkadian god of Wisdom, is 
represented by the serpent. It was the serpent that inducted the primal pair into the secrets 
of the hidden wisdom when they ate of the fruit that was to open their vision and make 
them wise— in keeping with the character here assigned to it! In some ancient drawings 
the serpent and the Goddess of Wisdom are portrayed in the act and attitude of offering 
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge to the human being. Sometimes the serpent holds the 
fruit in its mouth. 

Africa is the primordial home of the serpent- wisdom, and the serpent was there made use 
of to produce the abnormal condition in Sensitives. The Africans tell of women being 
possessed and made insane by contact with the serpent. That is, the reptile, from the 
fascination of its look, fear of its touch, and use of its tongue, threw the mediums into the 
state of trance called the stupor of the serpent, in which they saw clairvoyantely, divined 
and prophesied, and so became divinely inspired, as the phenomena were interpreted. We 
are told that Cassandra and Helenus were prepared for seeing into the future by means of 
Serpents that cleansed the passages of their sense by licking them! In this way the 
sensitives were tested, and made frantic; thus the serpent chose its own oracle and 
mouthpiece and became the revealer of preternatural knowledge. The stupor caused by 
the serpent's sorcery created a kind of religious awe, and the extraordinary effects 
produced on the mediums were attributed to the supernatural power of the serpent! Those 
who were found to be greatly affected by it were chosen to become Fetish women, 
priestesses, and pythonesses. This Obea cult still survives wherever the black race has 
migrated, and the root of the matter, which travellers have found so difficult to get at, is 
unearthed at last, as a most primitive kind of Spiritualism, in which the serpent acted the 
part of the mesmerist or magnetizer to the natural somnambules. This I personally learned 
from an Initiate in the Voudou Mysteries. 

In various parts of Africa, especially on the Guinea coast, the oracle of the serpent is a 
common institution. The reptile is kept in a small hut by an old woman, who feeds it, and 
who gives forth the responses when the serpent oracle is consulted. She is the medium of 
spirit-communication! In Hwida the fetish priests are known by a name which signifies 
the "mother of the serpent." In a chant of the Algonkins it is asked, "Who is Manitu?"— or 
medicine man— and the reply is, "He that goeth with the serpent." The witch of Endor is 
called a woman who was mistress of Aub. Aub is also an Assyrian word which means the 
serpent. In Egyptian the serpent is Ap, to be inflated, serpent-like. In short, the witch was 
a pythoness, a serpent-woman inspired with the serpent wisdom of Obea or the ophite 
cult. In the Hebrew book of Genesis the serpent beguiles the woman to eat the fruit of the 
Tree of Knowledge, and is damned for doing so. But there was a sect of Gnostic 
Christians who paid the serpent the highest honour because it had done this thing. Being 
Gnostics, they were acquainted with the serpent- wisdom, and knew what the fable 
signified, which is what the collectors and translators of those ancient fragments never 
have known, and so we have a creed called Christian, founded on an impious perversion 
of ancient knowledge, which teaches that all mankind were likewise damned because the 
first pair tasted of the tree of knowledge, and all of us are additionally damned who do 



not accept the story as true! 

The chief sacred trees of the world, the typical trees of knowledge, have always been 
those that produce a fruit or juice from which an alcoholic or narcotic drink could be 
distilled on purpose to induce the somnambulic trance. The Egyptians used the juice of 
the sycamore fig tree. Human beings transform into immortal spirits by drinking of its 
juice, which is represented as a liquid of life. In inner Africa the toddy-palm supplied the 
sacred potion already fermented; and what an amazing Tree of Knowledge that toddypalm 
must have been! In India the Tree of Knowledge was the Pippala, or sacred fig tree. 
This fig tree is a meeting place for men and immortals. Under it Yama, king of the 
departed, and the Pitris, the protecting, fatherly spirits, quaffed the divine drink in 
common with human beings. From the fruit of it a drink was made, so potent that it not 
only exalted men to the status of immortals, and placed them on a footing of fellowship 
with the gods, but brought down the gods to meet with men. In other words, intoxication 
was a mode of spirit-communication— the mediums being inspired by strong drink to utter 
their revelations. This is portrayed on Hindoo monuments. It was the Tree of Knowledge, 
and the drink was divine just because it lapped the senses in Elysium, and opened the 
inner eyes to see in trance. In the Hindu drawings you see the medium who was 
intoxicated, and consulted underneath the Tree of Knowledge; she eats—or drinks— of the 
fruit of the tree, that her inner eyes may be opened. In the Rig-Vda the gods are 
represented as obtaining immortality by constantly getting drunk with Amartyam 
Madam, the immortal stimulant! They drink copiously the first thing in the morning, they 
are drunk by mid-day, and dead drunk at night. We hear of North- American Indians who 
have the notion that immortality consists in being eternally dead drunk— dead drunk being 
a primitive mode of expressing extreme felicity in a life beyond the present— a kind of 
paradisaical condition. The worshippers follow the example of their gods, and drink the 
intoxicating soma juice to attain immortality. In this state they sing— 

"We've quaffed the Soma bright, 
And are immortal grown, 
We've entered into light, 
And all the gods have known." 

Exactly as it is with the first pair of people in the book of Genesis. The Serpent informs 
the woman that if she will eat of the fruit of the tree their eyes shall be opened, and they 
shall be as gods, knowing good from evil. And when the woman saw that it was a tree to 
be desired to make one wise, she did eat of it. The Wise are the Seers in this abnormal 
sense. Prophets, seers, magi and wizards are the wise men. The primal pair have eaten of 
the Tree of Knowledge, the Elohim or celestial spirits exclaim, "Behold! the man has 
become as one of us," that is, as a spirit amongst spirits. This opening of the eyes means 
an unsealing of the interior vision. "And their eyes were opened, and they knew him," is 
said of those who had seen the risen Christ. So Balaam, the man who saw in vision, that 
is, in the trance condition, is described as the man whose eyes were opened; the Seer who 
saw the vision of the Almighty, falling in trance, having his eyes opened. In this aspect, 
eating of the Tree of Knowledge was simply partaking of the divine drink, the drink of 
immortality, the sacred potion or Nepenthe, which was made and administered in all the 
mysteries, for the purpose of producing the abnormal vision in the practice of spiritintercourse. 
The Tree of Knowledge had taught them how to enter the spirit-life or spiritworld 
that way, by means of wisdom or knowledge. The Typical Tree had its religious 
rootage here, not in direct adoration, but in the mystery of fermentation, and attained its 
sacredness on account of the Divine drink. Hence the Trees could be very various, but the 
product was one. We may note that Sophia, the Greek word for wisdom, originally 
signified wine. A prior form of the word in Egyptian, as Sefa or Kefa, meant distilling 



and the mystery of fermentation. Alcoholic spirits were very prominent in primitive 
spiritism, because they produced abnormal effects! Intoxication was also a mode of 
illustrating the genesis of spirit—the alcoholic being a type of the human product. The 
facts are registered in language. In Sanskrit, Sidhu is distilled spirit, and Siddha means 
the spiritually perfected; the Siddhas being the perfect spirits. So in Egyptian, Shethu 
denotes spirits of wine; Sheta is the mystery of mysteries, and the Sheta was the coffin or 
sarcophagus in which the dead transformed, or were turned into Spirits. In the Bacchic 
Mysteries they also enacted the production of the spirit by means of fermentation; the 
soul assigned to Seb, who represented the sap of wood in Egypt, or, as we now see, the 
juice of the tree that ferments and produces the alcoholic spirit—the drink that made men 
wise in the Mysteries. In the book of Deuteronomy the Jews are instructed or commanded 
to spend their savings in drink, as an offering to the Deity, which shows that intoxication 
was also a religious rite with them. 

It was this crude nature of these primitive practices that chiefly led to the wholesale 
condemnation of mediums, sorcerers, wizards, witches, and all who had familiar spirits. 
It was so in Egypt as in India; in the Persian writings as well as the Mosaic. And these 
denunciations were and still are accepted as the very word of God by those who are 
ignorant of the phenomena, and who could not distinguish the lower from the higher, 
saintly from satanic, or black magic from white. Thus, on account of certain early 
practices, Spiritualism was damned altogether, instead of being fathomed and explained. 
Our customs of drinking strong liquors, snuffing most potent powders, and smoking 
narcotic herbs, which are now besotting and degrading the race— so much so that our 
protoplasm and protozoa have to come into being half-fuddled with nicotine— so that our 
children are doomed by heredity to become smokers and drinkers, without being allowed 
the chance of making a fresh start for themselves— these very customs have been 
bequeathed to us as sacred survivals from the times when the trance-conditions were 
induced by such means! 

Again, the universal customs of Transforming, of Masking and Mumming, are related to 
the mysteries of ancient spiritism. In Egyptian the word mum, whence the name of 
mummy, means the dead body. We have the identical word and meaning in English, 
applied to a beer called "mum-beer," which was not taxed because it is non-alcoholic, 
unfermented, spiritless, or dead beer, i.e., mum-bear. 

This is not so called, as some have suggested, from a man named Mummer, who was 
once famous for his brew of strong ale. Our mummers used to go about in masks and 
"mum" by making sounds with closed lips. The two sexes exchanged dresses with each 
other, as a part of the transformation that was being enacted by the mummers, who 
represented the dead come back in disguise to pay a visit to the living. The annual 
masking still practised by our children about the time of "All-Soul's day," is a survival of 
this primitive pantomime, in which the masks signify the spirits of the dead or the 
mummies. The institution of "All Souls" is a most ancient ceremonial festival of the dead. 
It is celebrated in many lands, and is common to the most diverse races of mankind. On a 
certain day after the Autumn equinox the spirits of all those (all souls) who had died 
during the year were supposed to gather together at an appointed place in the West to 
follow their leader, the red sun of Autumn, down through the under-world, or across the 
horizon of the resurrection. When such mysteries were performed, those who acted the 
part of spirits did so in masks, and therefore masks still mean the dead, the mummies or 
spirits. The modern pastime was an earlier religious mystery. In the genuine Christmas 
Pantomime we have an extant illustration of this primitive masking and mumming, which 
belonged to the drama of the dead, even as we find it in the Egyptian Ritual. In those 
subterranean scenes of the Pantomime we are really in the Egyptian Meska, the rebirthplace 
of the dead, where the transformations into the new life were represented; and 
the Meska is the original Mask as place of transformation, mode of transformation, or 



symbol of transformation. The pivot of the pantomime on which all turns is the principle 

of transformation. The transformation is from the lower world of the dead, the place of 

the mummies or masks—hence the giants, dwarfs, fairies, gnomes, bad spirits, and other 

types of the elemental powers, that were represented earlier than human spirits—to the 

daylight world of life, light, and liberty, now represented by fun, frolic, and lawlessness. 

Harlequin is the potent transformer, who wields the wonder-working wand. With his 

mask down he is invisible; another proof that the masks represent the dead or the spirits. 

The final transformation scene represents heaven; the upper world of three. The mask, 

then, is the face of the dead, and the death-mask of the Siberian Shaman was preserved 

and hung up in his late residence, just above the place where he used to sit. In New 

Britain the natives perform a religious ceremony called the "duk-duk," in which a spiritmessenger 

is represented as coming in a mask. The women and children are prohibited 

from seeing the mask, and they must not say that it conceals any human being. If the 

performer allows the mask to slip off, they kill and make a ghost of him. Masks in animal 

forms and fashions represent the nature-powers or the Totemic and typical ancestors, but 

the human mask assuredly stands for a human spirit. And the endeavor to represent this 

can be traced from the rudest beginnings. In some instances the human face has been 

flayed from the bones, and transferred to form the mask of a fetish image. The aborigines 

of Bolivia and Brazil used to take off the face and scalp from the skull, and reduce them 

to a miniature mask of humanity, supposed to possess supernatural properties, and to 

furnish a most potent medicine. The Maori, amongst others, learned to dessicate the head 

and preserve it in its own skin, on the way to complete mummifying of the corpse. Before 

the mummy could be embalmed entirely the skull was sacredly saved, and sometimes the 

flesh was imitated by coating it with a mask made of reddish matter. We are now for the 

first time in a position to apprehend the meaning of the mummy-image, and to appreciate 

the motive of the Egyptians, who practised the art of embalming the dead until it was 

absolutely perfected. 

The Mummy or corpse was the dead mask which had been let fall from the face of life by 

the person who had transformed, and this was faithfully preserved, because it was the 

mortal likeness of the person who had transformed and become a spirit! 

In the primary stage and rudest conditions of the human race, the returning ghost was 

naturally an object of terror and dread, the representative of all that was most fearsome in 

external phenomena; not in the least likely to evoke, although it helped to ultimately 

evolve, a feeling of reverence, which led to some kind of worship; and a long road had to 

be traveled from the earliest period, when the ghost was besought and propitiated not to 

appear, up to the time when the bones of the dead were kept in the house or chest, and the 

mask or mummy was sacredly preserved on purpose to secure the presence of the ghost 

as a protection for the living relatives— whence the lares and penates, and other forms of 

the household gods. Doubtless, it took a very long time to utilise the ghost, or fully make 

out its message to man. But that stage had been traveled by the Egyptians when they first 

come into view. It is certain that from the earliest monumental period, and, probably, 

ages before that, the Egyptians represented man to be what is termed an immortal spirit. 

The text of the 130th chapter of the "Book of the Dead" is said to have been discovered 

or re-discovered, in the reign of Housapti, the fifth king of the first dynasty, who lived 

more than 6000 years ago. At that time certain portions of the sacred books were found as 

antiquities, of which the very tradition had been lost. And this is the chapter of "Vivifying 

the soul for ever." The Egyptians were accustomed to set up two different images with 

the dead body in the tomb. One of these is the Shebti, or duplicative figure. This was one 

of their types of transformation; it represented the duplication of the mummy for another 

life, called that of the Second Breath. The other image was named the Ka, or second self. 

The 105th chapter of the Ritual is entitled the chapter of "Propitiating the Ka of a person 

in the divine nether world;" and, in the pictorial illustration, the person is represented in 



the act of adoring his own spiritual image, the glorified Eidolon, to which he relates how 
he abominates all filthy things, in order that his ka, or higher self, may be propitiated and 
pleased. The Egyptian title of ka-ankh meant the living likeness, or the likeness of the 
immortal, the one that lived on after death. Moreover, this ka was not only the reflex 
image of the defunct erected in the tomb; it was also pourtrayed as being born with the 
mortal into this life. In the scenes at Luxor, in which Amenhept III. is represented at the 
moment of birth, another infant, his exact likeness, is depicted as his ka, his genius, 
himself in a divine effigy. Also, it was a great joy for the spirit of the deceased to be 
permitted to revisit the dead body and see how carefully it was preserved, which shows 
us the final crowning motive for making and keeping the Mummy. In the chapter 
(lxxxix.) of the visit of the soul or Ka of the deceased to his body, it is said,~"Thou hast 
let my eternal soul see my body! " "He sees his body;" and "He is at peace in his 
Mummy!" 

The chief fact with which we are now concerned, is, that the Mummy-image supplied the 
supreme type of transformation, and was the Egyptian Karast, or Christ. Various symbols 
of durability and rebirth were buried with the Egyptian dead, when the mummy was 
deposited in the hen-ankhu, or chest of the living. A copy of the Book of the Second 
Breath— Sen-sen— formed his pillow, and the leaves of the Book of Life were the lining of 
his coffin. He was accompanied by his types of protection, of duration, and renewal, the 
ankh-cross of life to come; the ankham-flower of life, worn at the ear, the tat-cross, or 
buckle of stability, the beetle of transformation, the vulture-image of victory; the greenstone 
(Uat) of revivification, the tablet of rosin, a type of preservation; the Level or 
corner-sign oiAmenu, signifying to come— our "amen." And, with the eyes of the sun and 
moon to light him through the darkness, the Egyptian entered his tomb, called the "Good 
Dwelling." A number of copies of the Shebti, or double of the dead, were ranged in the 
Serdab to signify manifold repetition, and the Ka-image of his spiritual self was erected 
in the tomb, as his visible link with his dead form on earth. But, the Mummy itself was 
also preserved as a type, just as the mummified hawks, mice, cats, and other animals, 
were preserved for their typical significance. Both Herodotus and Plutarch tell us how the 
Egyptians ended a banquet by carrying round, in a coffin, the image of a dead body. 
"Look on it, they said, and drink, for when you are dead you will be like this!" That 
image was the mummy-type of immortality! The sentiment was not that of "Eat and 
drink! for to-morrow we die! " It was one of rejoicing in the assurance of immortality 
which the mummy-image represented. This mummy-image was the Egyptian Corpus 
Christi, the body of Christ, or spirit which was to be reborn. We have to go a long way 
back to get at the origin of the types and symbols now called Christian; not one of these 
originated at the beginning of our era! The Christ, for instance, is a pre-Christian type, 
connected with the mask, the mummy, and the mysteries of transformation. 
The first male type of the Christ was after the flesh, and founded on the transformation of 
the boy into man—the Christ who became the anointed one of puberty. This Phallic fetish 
associated with the rite of circumcision was the one repudiated by Paul for the spiritual 
Christ— not the historical Jesus. In the Gnostic sense the word made s£rx, or flesh, was 
this Phallic Logos founded on the Causative Seed; the reproductive power which 
transformed in this life having been made a type of transformation for the future life! In 
the Gospel according to Thomas, it is said— "He who seeks me will find me in children 
from seven years old; for there concealed I shall, in the fourteenth year, be made 
manifest"— that is, as the pubescent Christ or Horus. In Greek the Christ means the 
anointed; but the mystical or spiritual sense of the word was preceded by the physical. 
Chriso and Chresthai are also names for daubing over with colouring matter; and it still 
is a primitive practice amongst the Black men and Red men to cover the bodies or bones 
of the dead with red ochre. Human bones buried in the mounds of Caithness have been 
found coated over with red earth. This was done to preserve and save them. It was also 



typical of their being refleshed; and the bone, head, mask, or body so saved became the 
symbol of a salvation and a saviour, because it was an image of transformation. This was 
the mummy figure in Egypt. To "karas," in Egyptian, is to anoint, embalm, or make the 
mummy; and the type of preservation so made was called the Karast or Christ. Such, I 
maintain, is the Egyptian origin of the Christ called the Anointed in Greek. The one who 
transformed and rose again from the dead, designated the Karast or Christ, was 
represented both by the prepared and preserved mummy, and by the carven image, which 
was the likeness of a dead man. Moreover, this was the original Christ, whose vesture 
was without seam. In making the perfect mummy type of continuity or immortality the 
body had to be bound up in the ketu or woof, a seamless robe, or a bandage without a 
seam. No matter how long this might be—and some swathes have been unrolled that were 
1000 yards in length—it was woven without a seam. This, I repeat, was the seamless robe 
of the mystical Christ, which re-appears as the coat, coating, or chiton (cf ketu, Eg. 
woof) of the Christ according to John. The Assyrians also made use of a mysterious 
sacred image called the mamit, or mamitu. It is celebrated in their hymns as the Mamit! 
the Mamit! the Treasure which passeth not away! It is spoken of as a shape of salvation, 
descending from the midst of the heavenly abyss: a life-giving image that was placed, as 
is the Cross, in the hands of the dying, to drive away evil spirits. This mamit was the sign, 
or fetish-image, of the one deity who never fails. I have shown elsewhere that this type of 
eternal life was identical with the Corpus Domini, the mummy-krist of Egypt! The Bit- 
Mamiti was the house of the mummies! The Kan-Mamiti was the book of the mummy; 
and the Mamit I hold to have been the image of the resurrection; a type and teacher of the 
Eternal! So, Mammoth in Hebrew is a name of the corpse as the image of the dead. 
We can trace the Karast or Mummy-Christ of Egypt a little further. When he transformed 
in the underworld, spiritualised or obtained a soul in the stars of heaven, he rose on the 
horizon as or in the constellation Orion— that is, the star of Horus, the Karast, or Christ. 
Hence Orion is named the Sahu, or constellation of the mummy who has transformed and 
ascended into heaven from the Mount of the Equinox, at the end of forty days, as the 
starry image of life to come, the typical Saviour of men. And Orion must have 
represented the risen Horus, the karast or Christ, at least 6000 years ago! This Christ is 
said to come forth sound, with no limb missing and not a bone broken, because the 
deceased was reconstituted in accordance with the physical imagery. And by aid of this 
Corporeal Christ of Egypt we can understand why the risen Christ of the Gospels is made 
to demonstrate that he is not a spirit or bodiless ghost, as the disciples thought, but is in 
possession of the flesh and bones of the properly preserved corpse. They have omitted the 
transformation into the spiritual Christ. Thus in that character he is only the corpus 
Christi, or mummy-Christ, of Egypt— a type transferred and not a reality, either spiritual 
or physical. There can be no doubt of this, for the child-Christ (copied into my book) is 
actually portrayed on a Christian monument in the Roman catacombs as this very image 
of the Mummy-Christ of Egypt, bound up in the seamless swathe of the Karast. 
Some of the Christian Fathers supposed that the Egyptians believed in the physical 
resurrection of the preserved body, and this false inference is frequently echoed in our 
own day. But it is a mistake of the ignorant. The doctrine of the resurrection of the Body 
is not Egyptian. There is proof extant that the Egyptians did not make the Mummy as 
their type of a physical resurrection. Being phenomenal and not mere theoretical 
Spiritualists, they had no need of a Corporeal resurrection. With them the deathless only 
was divine, and their dead are spirits divinized by rebirth in the likeness of their Gods. I 
repeat, the doctrine of the physical resurrection of the body is not Egyptian. We find in 
the "Book of the Dead" that the promise of all blessedness, the supreme felicity, is for the 
spirit not to re-enter the earthly body for evermore. In the rubric to chapter lxxxix. we 
read— "His soul does not enter, or is not thrust back, into his mummy forever." Their idea 
of the life hereafter always turned on the transformation, and not on the resurrection, of 



the body; and their doctrine is that of transformation in the Hades, and not of resurrection 
from the earth. They left the dogma of a physical resurrection to be carried off as the 
stolen property of the non-spiritist Christians in Rome, along with so many other dead 
effigies of things that never lived. Accordingly the early Christians, who were ignorant of 
Egyptian symbolism, did base their belief in a life hereafter upon a bodily resurrection 
here, derived from the Karast or Mummy-Christ. Their foothold in a future existence as 
spiritual entities did depend on the re-possession of an earthly physique. Without the 
physical possibility there was no spiritual probability hereafter for them~no life without 
the re-constitution of the old dead dust, which a mere whiff of science scatters forever, 
and so abolishes their one bit of foothold in all the universe. Modern or ancient 
Spiritualism has no message or meaning for such people; they are corporeally founded, 
and there they rest and cling to the earth with the rootage of eighteen hundred years. This 
was a natural result of taking over the mummy-type of Egypt without a knowledge of the 
typology, and the ghost-idea without the ghost in reality, or the facts upon which it was 
founded. The doctrines and dogmas of Christian theology are derived from Egypt and its 
arcanum of mystery, which the modern believers have never yet penetrated~we are only 
just now opening the door. And here it may be said that those Egyptologists, who are 
orthodox Bibliolators, first and foremost, are not going to help us much. Bibliolatry puts 
out the eyes of scholarship. We have to get at the facts and help ourselves! 
The pre-Christian religion was founded on a knowledge of natural and verifiable Facts, 
the data being actual, and the method very simply scientific—whether you accept my 
conclusions or not, —but the Christian Cult was founded on ignorant belief, which 
swallowed in faith all that was impossible in fact, and unverifiable in phenomena. 
Current orthodoxy is based upon a deluding idealism—derived from literalised legend and 
misinterpreted mythology— on the idea that man fell from paradise, and was damned for 
ever before the first child had been born— on the idea that the world was consequently 
lost— on the idea that the world is to be saved and man restored by a vicarious atonement- 
-on the idea of a miraculous physical resurrection from the dead. And all these ideas are 
at once non-natural, non-spiritual, unscientific, and utterly false; and year by year, day 
after day, their props are being knocked away. But the phenomenal Spiritualist in all ages 
has founded on his facts. These facts were common with the pre-historic races, and the 
phenomena were cultivated more intelligently in the ancient Mysteries. But they were 
utterly abominated and crushed or cast out by the later religion. 
What has the Christian Church done with the human soul, which was an assured 
possession of the pre-Christian religions? It was handed over to their keeping and they 
have lost it! They have acted exactly like the dog in iEsop's fable— who, seeing the 
likeness of the shoulder of mutton reflected in the water, dropped the substance which he 
held in his mouth, and plunged in to try and seize its shadow! They substituted a phantom 
of faith for the 
216 

knowledge of phenomena! Hence their deadly enmity against the Gnostics, the men who 
knew. They had got hold of a faith that could stand alone independently of fact, if you 
only made believe hard enough, and killed out all who could not believe. They drew 
down the blinds of every window that looked forth into the Past, and shut out the light of 
nature from the blinded world in which they sought to live, and compel all other people 
to live, by a farthing candle of faith alone. They parted company with nature, and cut 
themselves adrift from the ground of phenomenal fact. They became the murderous 
enemies of the ancient spiritism which had demonstrated the existence and continuity of 
the soul and offered evidence of another life on the sole ground of fact to be found in 
nature. And ever since they have waged a ceaseless warfare against the phenomena and 
the agents— which are as live and active to-day as they were in any time past. Mediums, 
prophets, and seers, witches, and wizards— the Born Immortals of the early races— have 



always been done to death by them with horrible tortures and inhuman cruelties. They 
have fought all along against the most vital and valuable, the profoundest part of the 
knowledge of nature, the most concealed, occult, and subtle; and been at war all through 
against the other world. But murder will out, and the innumerable multitude of their 
victims are only dead against them. They are living on for us; they are working with us; 
they are fighting for the eternal truth with terrible power, against the worshippers of the 
gory God, the men of the "bloody faith," which has yet to pay for all the massacre and 
misery that the race has suffered, in order that a delusive fiction might be forced upon the 
world. The soul was established as a fact, and the future life was demonstrated in the 
mysteries of ancient Spiritism. These were the creators of a sentiment that might be 
called religious, for the first time, and the Christian teachers to-day are but trafficking in 
and beguiling the hereditary sentiment so evolved, by not only trying to do without the 
original factors in the past, but by seeking to efface them from Nature itself. If anything 
could have put an end to Spiritualism, it was the never-ceasing Christian persecution that 
was directed towards that end. They substituted a physical resurrection from the dead for 
a spiritual continuity, such as was demonstrated in the mysteries of the men who knew! 
As if a physical resurrection, that was alleged to have occurred once on a time, could 
demonstrate the continuity of spiritual existence for us! And to-day you still see their 
learned doctors of divinity trying to get at the other world by grave-digging— still 
fumbling after the spirit of man as though his essence were dust of the earth—which they 
say God has power to put together, every particle of it, at the Last Day; and so we shall 
rise again after all. They oppose, and fear Cremation, as Bishop Wordsworth admitted, 
because it looks as though that would destroy the physical and only foothold of their 
resurrection. Tomb-stones, and books, are still dedicated by them to the memory 
217 

of those who are "no more! " The future life for them is but a desolate "perhaps." The 
meeting again is only a "may be." At the mouth of the gaping grave they mumble 
something about the "hope" of a joyful resurrection. That is the physical resurrection at 
the Last Day, on which the failing faith was founded at first; and that, according to John, 
was all the alleged Founder of the faith had to reveal when He is said to have said: 
"Every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on Him, I will raise him up at the last 
day!" The Spiritualism of the Roman Catholic Church, with its doctrine of Angels, its 
Purgatorial Penance, and efficacy of Prayers for the dead, is a survival from Paganism, 
and was not derived from the teachings of the supposed Founder of Historic Christianity 
as represented in the Canonical Gospels. Hence the rejection of that (and all other such) 
Spiritualism by the Protestants! 

And some of our friends, who are Christians first and Spiritualists afterwards, want to 
convert Christianity into Spiritualism. But it will not, and cannot, be converted. 

In vain you try to engraft the living shoot 
Upon a dead tree, rotten to the root. 

The Christians themselves know better than that, and they are far more logical. They 
apprehend truly enough that their religion did not originate in Spiritualism, but as its 
deadly antagonist; hence when phenomenal Spiritualism is presented in our own day as a 
basis for immortality, just as it was in the pre-Christian ages and religions of all lands, 
and in all the mysteries where the genuine Gnosis was unfolded, the Christians stop their 
ears against any such report, or take up arms to defend the faith against the alleged facts. 
You cannot spiritualise such a creed any more than you can make it scientific, and the 
reason for this must be sought, and is to be found, in its mythological and non-spiritual 
origin. It is of necessity at war with all the facts in nature upon which it was not founded. 
We do not want a closer connection with a superseded system of thought, but rather a 



repeal of the union and the fullest freedom of complete divorce. It is for Spiritualism to 
join hands with Science, enlarge the boundaries of knowledge, found upon the facts in 
nature, not seek for an impossible alliance with a system that has always been anti-natural 
and at war with scientific facts, because it was falsely founded, from the first, in fable and 
in faith versus knowledge; the early Christians having been those who ignorantly 
believed, as opposed to the Gnostics, or the men who knew. 

I do not propose to raise a new cry, form another sect, advertise an infallible nostrum, or 
pose as the founder of any fresh faith, when I say that a new and more comprehensive 
and inclusive kind of Gnosticism, which shall be quite free and above board and open all 
round, is one of the crying wants of our age. Spiritualism cannot be made to stand under 
or buttress the falling faith, but it may help to establish a new Gnosticism which shall 
found upon the facts first and let the faith follow naturally after. 
218 



THE SEVEN SOULS OF MAN AND THEIR CULMINATION IN CHRIST 

Whilst the people of modern times appear to have been losing their Soul altogether, or 
not to have found out that they really possess one, the ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, 
Hindus, Britons, and other races, reckoned that they had Seven souls, or that the one soul 
as permanent entity included the sum total of seven powers. The doctrine is very ancient, 
but it has been stated anew by the author of "Esoteric Buddhism, " as if it were a recent 
revelation derived from India as the fountain-head of ancient knowledge. 
Mr. Sinnett's claim is, that he has been specially appointed by the Mahatmas as their 
mouth-piece to the Western World, and empowered to put into print, for the first time, the 
oral Wisdom that has hitherto been kept all sacredly concealed. But I can assure Mr. 
Sinnett that the seven Souls of Man are by no means new to us, nor are they those 
"transcendental conceptions of the Hindu mind" in which he has been led devoutly to 
believe. To the serious student of such subjects, the system of esoteric interpretation now 
put forth, with its seven souls of man projected into shadow-land; its races of men that go 
round and round the Planetarium seven by seven, like the animals entering Noah's ark; its 
seven planets as stages of human existence, with our earth left out of the reckoning; its 
seven continental cataclysms, which occur periodically; does not contain a revelation of 
new truth from the Orient, nor a corroboration of the old. The seven souls of man were 
not metaphysical "concepts" at any time in the past. The doctrine belongs to primitive 
biology, or the physiology of the soul, which preceded the later psychology. Just as we 
speak of the seven senses the ancients spoke of the seven souls as principles, powers, or 
constituent elements of man. These were founded on facts of common perception, 
verifiable in nature; and we do not need those faculties of the occult adept "which 
mankind at large has not yet evolved" in order that they may be apprehended. 
Mr. Sinnett is of opinion that it would be "impossible for even the most skilful professor 
of occult science to exhibit each of these seven principles separate and distinct from the 
others. " That is, when they have been mystified by pseudo-esoteric misrepresentation, in 
a metaphysical phase; then they lose the distinctness of physics; and then we have to hark 
back once more to distinguish and identify these seven souls of man. The truth is, that 
when the teachings of primitive philosophy have passed into the domain of later 
speculations, you can make neither head, tail, nor vertebra of them—they constitute an 
indistinguishable mush of manufactured mystery! And the only way of exposing the 
pretensions of false teaching, and of destroying the superstitions, old or new, that prey 
upon and paralyze the human mind, is by explaining them from the root; to learn what 
they once meant in their primary phase is to know what they do not and cannot mean for 
us to-day. Nothing avails us finally, short of a first-hand acquaintanceship with the 
knowledge and modes of expression that were primordial. 

It is quite possible, and even apparent, that the first form of the mystical SEVEN was seen 
to be figured in heaven by the seven large stars of the Great Bear, the constellation 
assigned by the Egyptians to the Mother of Time, and of the seven Elemental Powers. 
And once a type like this has been founded it becomes a mould for future use—one that 
cannot be got rid of or out of. The Egyptians divided the face of the sky by night into 
seven parts. The primary Heaven was sevenfold. The earliest forces recognised in Nature 
were reckoned as seven in number. These became Seven Elementals, devils, or later 
divinities. Seven properties were assigned to nature— as matter, cohesion, fluxion, 
coagulation, accumulation, station, and division— and seven elements or souls to man. A 
principle of sevening, so to say, was introduced, and the number seven supplied a sacred 
type that could be used for manifold future purposes. When Abraham took his oath at 



Beer-sheba, the Well of the Seven, we are told that he sevened, or did seven. Sevening 
was then a recognized mode of swearing; and Sevening is still a recognized mode of 
swearing with the Esoteric Buddhists, who, according to Mr. Sinnett, continue it ad 
libitum, and carry it on through thick and thin. 

The seven souls of the Pharaoh are often mentioned in the Egyptian texts. The moon-god, 
Taht-Esmun, or the later sun-god, expressed the Seven nature-powers that were prior to 
himself, and were summed up in him as his seven souls, of which he was the manifestor 
as the Eighth One. In the Hindu drawings we see the god Agni portrayed with seven arms 
to his body. These represent his seven powers, principles, breaths, or souls. The seven 
rays of the Chaldean god Heptaktis, or Iao, on the Gnostic stones indicate the same 
septenary of souls. The seven stars in the hand of the Christ in Revelation have the same 
significance. There is a star with eight rays, which is found to be the symbol of Buddha, 
of Assur in Assyria, of Mithras; and of the Christ in the catacombs of Rome. That was the 
symbol of the Gnostic pleroma of the seven souls, the perfect flower or star of which was 
the Christ of the Gnosis; not of any human history. It can be traced back to Egypt as the 
star of Sut-Horus, a star with eight points or loops, undoubtedly meant for Orion, which 
was at one time the star of Annunciation, that showed the place where the young child 
lay, or where the God was re-born upon the horizon of the Resurrection at Easter. A very 
ancient form of the eight-rayed star was a sign of the Nnu, the Associate Gods of Egypt, 
who were the Seven Ali (Ari) or Companions (Cf the Babylonian Hi and Gnostic 
Elohim), as children of the Great Mother, the Gnostic Ogdoas. The same type, with the 
same meaning, is represented in the Book of Revelation, where the son of man (who is a 
male with female breasts, and therefore not a human being) holds in his hand the seven 
stars which symbolise the seven angels or spirits who are in the service of their Lord—like 
the Seven Great Spirits in the 17th chapter of the Egyptian "Book of the Dead." 
Seven souls, or principles in man, were identified by our British Druids. In the Hebrew 
Targummim, Haggadoth and Kabbala, the Rabbins sometimes recognise a threefold soul- 
-as of life, the animal —from the Egyptian nef, for the breath. This is the quickening spirit 
of the embryo. The Ruach is said to enter the boy at the age of thirteen years and one day. 
That is the soul of adultship, the reproducing spirit reproduced for reproduction at 
puberty. The third spirit, or Neshamah, is an intelligent soul which enters a man at twenty 
years of age, if the deeds of his life are right; if not, he is unworthy of the Neshamah, and 
the Nephesh and Ruach remain his only souls. Another Rabbi says the soul of man has 
five distinct forms and names—the Nephesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Cajiah, and the Jachida. 
The Cajiah is the spirit that makes to re-live; the Jachida denotes that which unifies all in 
one, and so establishes the permanent entity. Some persons are spoken of as being worthy 
to receive the Jachida in the life to come. Ben Israel teaches that the Nephesh, Ruach, and 
Neshamah signify nothing more than faculties, capacities, or constituent principles of the 
man, and that an additional soul means increase of knowledge and advancement in the 
study of Divine laws. The Rabbins also ran the number of souls up to seven; so likewise 
do the Karens of India. The Khonds of Orissa recognise four souls, or a fourfold soul. 
One of these dies on the dissolution of the body; one, the ancestral soul, remains attached 
to the Tribe on earth to be re-produced, generation after generation— in relation to which, 
when a child is born the priest inquires which member of the family has come back 
again? The third soul is able to go forth and hold spirit-intercourse, leaving the body in 
an inert condition. This is the soul that can assume other shapes by the art of Mleepa, or 
the gnosis of transformation. The fourth soul is restored to the good deity Boora, and thus 
attains immortality. Here, as in other instances, there is an ascending series. 
Sometimes we meet with a dual soul called the dark shadow and the light shadow; at 
other times with a triple soul. 

But we have now to do with the natural genesis of the Seven Souls and their culmination 
in the eighth One, the reproducer for another life, which was personified as the Pharaoh, 



the Repa, the Heir-Apparent, the Horus, the Buddha, Krishna or the Christ. Two sets of 
the seven may be tabulated in their Egyptian and Hindu shapes and compared as follows :- 
Indian. Egyptian. 

1 . Rupa, body, or element of form 1 . Kha, body. 

2. Prana, or Jiva, the breath of life 2. Ba, the soul of breath. 
3. Astral body 3. Khabs, the shade. 

4. Manus, or Intelligence 4. Akhu, Intelligence or Perception 

5. Kama-Rupa, or animal soul 5. Seb, ancestral soul. 

6. Buddhi, or spiritual soul 6. Putah, the first intellectual father. 

7. Atma, pure spirit 7. Atmu, a divine, or eternal soul. 

Primitive man naturally observed from the first that he was brought forth by the mother, 
formed of flesh, made from her blood; that is the mystical water, or matter of life, and the 
red earth of mythology. This primal element was represented by the Great Mother of all 
flesh; and the first soul was accordingly derived from the blood, the mystical parent of 
Life. Thus, in the Mangaian account of Creation, the Great Mother, Vari, is said to make 
the first man from pieces of her own flesh! Flesh being blood that has taken form. "Some, 
indeed, " says Hermes, "misled by nature, mistook the blood for the soul; " that is, they 
took it so, to begin with; and such was the nature of the human soul No. 1. This soul of 
blood is identified in Genesis ix. 4 and 5. Blood is the Adamic soul! From the Mother 
source came the red earth of the Adamic or primary creation, whence the Rabbins 
sometimes call Adam the "Blood of the world!" In the Semitic languages, Assyrian and 
Hebrew, Adam signified "Blood"— simply blood, as the red. It was thought at one time 
that two primal races of men were alluded to in the Cuneiform Texts, under the names of 
Adamu and Sarku; but it is now known that these names signify the two principles of 
female matter and male spirit, the Hindu perusha. 

At this primitive stage begin the legends with which we have been so pitiably beguiled, 
or so profoundly perplexed! 

In the first account of the creation of man, in the Hebrew Genesis, he is formed in the 
image of the Elohim, who were the seven primal elemental powers, that became celestial 
as the keepers of time in Heaven—in their second phase—and ultimately the seven 
Planetary spirits. At that early stage of sociology, man descended from the mother alone! 
In the second creation (for there are two), the woman is derived from the male as 
progenitor. The first is born of blood, the second of bone, a type of masculine substance. 
And these two sources, female and male, supply the two doctrinal types to Paul when he 
says, "As in Adam (the flesh-man) all men die, even so in Christ (the spirit-man) shall all 
be made alive!" Here the true interpretation cannot be obtained without the aid of the 
primitive physiology; it does not depend upon any fulfillment of fable as fact in later 
history, but on the adaptation of the mythical types to convey a mystical meaning in what 
are called "mysteries," that were very simple in their primal phase— which phase is the 
object of our present search. 

The Psalmist refers to this Adamic man when he says, "Put not your trust in the son of 
man; his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth. In that very day his purposes 
perish. " The antithesis to this was the Son of God, the second Adam, the man from 
heaven, the Christ, or immortal spirit; in short, a later type of the human soul! The first 
Adam represented the man, or creation of the seven souls, and the seven Elohim, whence 
it was said, in the Semitic Legends, that his head only reached up to the seventh heaven. 
The second Adam, or the Christ, attains the eighth heaven, as the height; or, he comes, 
later on, to represent the ten-fold heaven as the Adam Kadmon of the Kabbalists. 
The Tahitians, whose Great Mother is named Eve (or Ivi), have the same physiological 
myth! They say that the first men were formed of Araea, or red earth, and on this they 
lived until bread was made— bread being typical of corn, corn of seed, i.e., male source. 



All men derived from the motherhood at first—and in that mythical creation the man was 
really created from the woman, instead of the woman being taken from the man, which 
was of necessity a later creation, in keeping with the sociology. The mystery of the 
woman being taken from the man is mentioned in the Egyptian Ritual, or Book of the 
Dead. The speaker says: "I know the mystery of the woman being taken from the man. " 
The matter of such a mystery was physiological. The far earlier mystery was that of man 
being created by the woman from the red earth, or blood. 

Next it was apprehended that the mother inspired the breath of life into her embryo. And 
breath, prajna, jiva, or the ba, constitutes the soul No. 2. In various legends man was 
made from the red earth, and the Blacks of Victoria say that their creator, Pundjel, blew 
the breath of life, or the soul of breath, in at his navel. These were the first two souls of 
the seven, because blood supplied the element of flesh, or form, and breath was the 
primal element of life. AYuni Indian description of death speaks of a man as having the 
wind pressed out of him, so that he forgot. 
And now for a doctrinal development! 

Blood and breath being the two primary elements or souls of life, these consequently 
became the two great types of sacrificial offering. Among the Amaponda Kaffirs when a 
new chief succeeds to the government it is a custom for him to be baptised in the blood of 
his brother, or some near relative, who is put to death for the purpose; and in Fiji when 
the canoe of a chief was launched a number of men were sacrificed, so that their souls (or 
Breath) might supply a wind of good luck for the sails of the vessel. It was on account of 
their natural genesis that these two souls of the blood and breath were typically continued 
in the water and the breath employed for the re-genesis, or regeneration, of the child in 
Christian baptism. Everyone of our religious rites and ceremonies has to be read 
backwards, like Hebrew, to be understood. 

The observation that blood, the first factor in primitive biology, was the basis used by 
Nature in building up the future human being is probably the source and origin of the 
superstition that in building a city, fortress, bridge, or church, an enduring foundation 
must be laid in blood; whence the primitive practice of burying a living child, a calf, a 
dog, goat, or lamb—the lamb slain from the foundation of the world being a Mithraic and 
Christian survival of the same significance, with the bloody and barbarous rite of the 
Victim immured as a basis for the building. Sometimes, as in the legend of Vortigern, the 
foundation-stone was to be bathed in the blood of a child that was born of a mother 
without any father; as was the child-Horus, who was the child of the Virgin Mother only. 
The doctrine is Egyptian, and as such can be understood. It was applied to Horus shut up 
in the region of annihilation, or transformation (the Skhem), where his type was the Red 
Mouse. 

As the breath of life was a kind of soul, so the steam of food, or the incense presented in 
sacrifice, was a form of the breath of life offered to the spirits of the dead or to the gods. 
The motive and meaning of many curious customs can only be apprehended on these 
physical grounds. For instance, when the Canadian Indians killed a bear they adjured the 
soul of the animal not to be angry with them, and then placing a pipe between its teeth 
blew tobacco-smoke backwards into its mouth, and thus symbolically restored that which 
they had just taken— its soul of breath. In the Rubric to the Egyptian Ritual it says— "Offer 
ye a great quantity of incense; it makes that spirit alive. " Drops of blood from the heart 
of a cow are likewise to be offered with the incense. Blood and breath (incense) were 
both offered by the Jews. Philo explains that the offerings of frankincense laid on the 
golden altar in the Inner Temple were more holy than the blood offered outside. The 
mystical meaning of which, he says, must be investigated by those who are eager for the 
truth in accordance with the Gnosis. The blood and breath survive also in the bloody 
wafer and incense of the Roman Ritual. 
Now, we have to go back to this Soul of Breath to reach the origin of the transmigration 



of souls, which has been continued into the domain of later doctrines by those who were 
ignorant of its beginnings. To breathe and to transmigrate are synonymous in Egyptian, 
under the word sen. But the transmigration of the soul of breath is neither physical nor 
spiritual in the modern sense; it is an entirely different doctrine from those of the 
Pythagorean and the Esoteric Buddhists, both of which were derived from the same 
primitive original, but have been perverted until they no longer represent the early 
coinage of human thought, and so they can authenticate nothing in this world, for any 
other. With a primitive soul of breath was evolved the notion of an Ancestral soul of the 
race, tribe, and Totem, which of necessity was as general as the intercourse of the sexes 
was then common. The Commentator on the Analects of the Confucius says— "My own 
animal spirits are the animal spirits of my progenitors. " Another Chinese teacher says— 
"Though we speak of individuals, and distinguish one from the other, yet there is in 
reality but one breath that animates them all. My own breath (or spirit) is the identical 
breath of my ancestors. " This soul of Breath, thus Pantheistically apprehended and 
expressed, could and did transmigrate; might be, and was, re-incarnated. It was 
incarnated in being individualised and discreeted from the Ancestral soul; and when it 
went back it was merged again in the general— qua soul. 

The king (Eg. Ank), who never dies, was first established upon this generic soul of the 
race, and not on a recurring identical personality of the reincarnated Soul. Thus 
reincarnation was true to the general Ancestral soul, but when continued in a later state of 
sociology, and applied to the Individual soul, it is a counterfeit— a false presentment of the 
original doctrine. 

The basis of all incarnation and reincarnation has to be sought in the primitive animism 
of the general, Ancestral, or Pan-soul, first recognised. At that stage of thought it is our 
soul that comes, and goes, and returns again— not my soul nor yours; and afterwards the 
reincarnation of soul was continued as the reincarnation of souls, when souls had been 
individualised here on earth by the father coming to recognise his own children; but this 
was only through taking a false step and making a false inference. 
The breath, or soul, of the dying was believed to re-enter the living. Thus, the Algonkins 
would bury their spirits, which were supposed to re-enter the future mothers as they were 
passing by! This was a soul of breath that could be inhaled, hence the practice of inbreathing 
souls. According to the Roman custom, it was the privilege of the nearest 
relative to inhale the last breath, or the passing soul, of a person dying. 
But the soul that was founded on the mere breath of life, which the mother inspired to 
quicken the embryo, was not much to go upon for ultimate duration! The African Dinka 
tribe are said to reject the idea of immortality, because their soul is "but a breath! "—in 
which they agree with some modern secularists; because this sign of life visibly ceases in 
death! Such would be the argument of the primitive positivists, who had not got beyond 
their second soul— that of breath. 

The third elementary is the so-called Astral shade, or shadow-soul. I once thought the 
shadow cast by the body might serve as the original type; or the image reflected in the 
eye. But there is more than that in it! There is a shade which is not a shadow. Dr. Tylor 
says that ghost, or phantom, seen by the dreamer, or visionary, is like a shadow, and thus 
the familiar term of the shade comes to express the soul! Such, however, is not the origin, 
as the Egyptian Shade, ox Khaba, proves. The Khaba, or third soul, is a light, visible, but 
not tangible, envelope of the Ba, or soul of the breath. Khab signifies cover, to veil, to 
cover over. It is applied to an eclipse; and what is shade in a burning land but cover? 
Hence the type of the third soul is an Egyptian sunshade! It is so the thought is thinged. 
But they did not require, nor did they devise, a sunshade to image something like a 
shadow seen in sleep! In the Text, the deceased rejoices that his shade, cover, or Khaba, 
has not been stripped from his Ba, or second soul, in death. More literally, that he hasn't 
lost his envelope! The Ba, distinguished from the Shade, is said to breathe. It is 



pourtrayed with a human head on the body of a bird, and may be seen in the Amenti, 
going through the hells accompanied by its sunshade, for cover in a burning land! It 
retains form, breath and shade or covering. The Egyptian sunshade is a^aw— actually the 
shade of breath. Their symbolism was so near to the natural fact! 
The shadow-soul of the Khonds is one that dies when the body dissolves, which shows 
that the Shade with them was this corporeal soul. The Greenlanders also recognised two 
souls as the Shade and the Breath. 

The fourth soul is an Intelligence, a form of mind, as the Power to perceive, to memorize, 
expressed by the Scottish "mind," to mind, or remember; the Egyptian ment, to 
memorize. In "making his transformation into the Soul" (Rit. ch. 85), the Deceased 
exclaims, in this character, "I am Perception, who never perishes under the name of the 
Soul" of mere breath. 

The third soul being a sense-perception, or corporeal spirit, the fourth an intelligence—the 
intelligence developing perceptibly in the growing child — the fifth is the Animal soul 
that visibly descends upon the male nature at the period of puberty, and not till then. This 
was the first soul that was seen to have the power of perpetuating itself for this life! No 
child has such power; therefore at this stage it was held that the child did not possess this 
soul, and so, in another doctrinal development, it was taught that children who died in the 
pre-pubescent stage of life, had NO souls! They had the soul of blood and breath, and the 
Astral shade, or, as the Egyptians have it, the Envelope; they were not without 
intelligence; but the power of reproduction constituted a self-creative soul! It was on this 
ground, then, that children who died before the soul of manhood had descended on their 
nature to transform it at puberty, were supposed to have no substantial, or self-producing 
soul. This accounts for the superstition that they wandered about after death as elves, or 
Elementaries, on the outskirts of this life, unable to enter the other world. For the infant 
elementaries were believed to walk and wander as elves, fairies, and brownies, in search 
of a soul, or in want of a name—as the conferring of a name was one mode of constituting 
a personality, or communicating a soul to the child! This may be illustrated by the Scotch 
story,— an "un-christened wean" was seen wandering about at Whittingham, in Scotland, 
who could not obtain foothold on the threshold of the other world, being minus in the 
matter of an adult principle, or soul No. 5. Many saw, but none dared speak to the poor 
little fellow, for fear of having to give up their own soul to him. One night, however, a 
drunken man addressed the Elementary,— "Hoo 's a'wi'ye, the morn's morn, Short 
Hoggers?" (short stockings that were sole-less as the child itself!) And the Elementary, 
having a name conferred, cried joyfully— "Oh! weel's me noo, I've gotten a name! They 
ca' 'me Short Hoggers o' Whittingham!" and vanished, having obtained his soul by proxy, 
or through Naming. These undeveloped little spirits became the "Wee-folk" that peopled 
fairy-world. The superstitions still retain traces of this origin; those of the Brownie, for 
example. He is a very helpful worker, who serves freely and faithfully by night in the 
house, or out on the farm by day. But show him a. pair ofbreeks, and he's off like Aikendrum, 
the brownie of Blednock. The reason why would never be divined, apart from the 
natural genesis here explained. Breeches are a type of that masculine soul which the 
Brownie had never attained, and the poor little Elementary could not face this significant 
reminder of the fatal fact! 

Now observe, upon this primeval constitution of a soul the rite of baptism and conferring 
a name (the name of the father) is founded. The doctrine of conferring a soul by proxy is 
very general ! Hence the god-father and god-mother, or the father-god and mother-god of 
earlier beliefs, who represented the adult creative source. Hence, also, the power falsely 
claimed by the Christian Church to-day to save the souls of children by baptismal grace, 
in response to the equally false belief that children would otherwise be lost, or have to go 
without an eternal soul! Children that die unbaptised in Russia are not registered at all; 
are (or were) not reckoned in the data for the laws of mortality! What an influence such a 



system must exert on the pietistic, the ignorant, and feeble-minded, in forcing them into 
the fold of faith, out of which is supposed to open the only doorway for their little ones 
into everlasting life! In this manner the modern sacerdotalists employ the fetishism of the 
ancient medicine men in the form of religious dogmas, superstitious doctrines, and rites 
supposed to save. 

It was at this stage of the soul that the doctrine of Salvation by means of selfemasculation 
had its natural genesis, and men unsexed themselves to save their souls, 
becoming eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; a doctrine of salvation taught by the 
Christ in Matthew's Gospel, which was carried out by the castrating Christians, who, like 
the Russian Skoptsi, looked forward to a millennium that was to come when all were 
self-mutilated. In the fragment of the "Egyptian Gospel," quoted both by Clement of 
Alexandria and Clement of Rome, we are told that the Christ, having been asked by 
Salome when his Kingdom was to come, answered, "When the male with the female shall 
be neither male nor female. " Now the Christ of which that could be said is of necessity 
the Spiritual Christ of either or of both Sexes. This is also the Christ of Paul when he 
says, "There is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ." Christian literalisers 
sought to attain that type by unsexing themselves! 

It follows, on the same physical basis, that the woman does not possess a soul, or, at least, 
not this particular soul, founded on the principle of virility, and that at this stage of 
thought she must derive her self-perpetuating soul from the masculine nature—if at all. In 
the Egyptian tale of the two brothers (in which we find the story of Joseph and Potiphar's 
wife), the younger one is deprived of his virile soul, whereupon he says to his consort,--"/ 
am a woman, even as thou art. " Here, then, the woman is also treated as the impubescent 
or soulless child! Some of the Christian fathers maintained that woman has no inherent 
soul, which proves they could not have been Spiritualists in any practical sense! They 
held that woman only represented matter (our soul No. 1) degraded and damned ever 
since the Fall of Man, and only to be saved by childbearing, as Paul teaches; that is, by 
the grace of the male, and the addition of a later soul. The Khonds of India, who had not 
got beyond the general Ancestral soul of the tribe, coupled this with the masculine power, 
and held that Woman was not a producer of soul; and they actually killed off their female 
children, because these shared in the Ancestral soul of the tribe, without contributing to 
the reserved stock, and were thus robbing the males of a portion of their own proper soul. 
If they reserved all the virile soul to themselves, they were brave enough to capture 
women and wives from other tribes; and such was their argument for and defence of 
female infanticide within their own tribe! The Turks, in common with other races, hold 
that Woman has no soul— I am trying to show the natural ground for such belief!— and that 
if she is reproduced at the time of the resurrection, it will have to be in the image of the 
male. This doctrine was likewise maintained by Augustine, amongst other of the 
Christian Fathers; and it dimly survives to-day with the Mormons, whose wives are 
wedded to the male, in order that they who are by nature soulless may have a chance of 
being raised at the last day by the saving power of the husband; consequently, the more 
wives wedded the more souls saved. This doctrine of the masculine soul is illustrated in 
Egypt by the shebti image of the dead. Egyptologists, like Mariette, have been puzzled to 
know why the "double" of the dead, which is always a figure of the bearded male, should 
be found in the tombs, as the type of the re-arising female, as well as of the male. It was 
because at a certain stage of thought— in relation to the physical basis— the female had to 
rise again in the image of the masculine soul— the soul No. 5— if at all. Thus, the potential 
immortality of the female is here made dependent on the male, through the primitive 
physiology dominating and determining the later doctrine. Here, as in so many other 
cases, it is a survival— simply a survival— from the early physics! good for its own 
meaning— but unable to carry us any further— except in the way in which it will mislead 
us. The potential immortality of the soul is one of the oldest beliefs common to the 



aboriginal and barbaric races of the world. Potential, or conditional immortality, is a 
doctrine put forward afresh in our time by Esoteric Buddhists and certain bibliolators! 
But these latter never can touch bottom or determine anything whatever by wrangling 
over a few texts of Scripture, that have been brought on without the explanation of the 
oral hidden wisdom. It may be truly said of the people of one book:~"Behold! ye know 
not anything!" Such doctrines as conditional immortality can only be judged by their 
natural genesis! We shall never get at them by mistaking what we cannot understand for a 
divine revelation; nor by reading into them a modern mis-interpretation. 
We have now to go back and learn of the primitive and uncivilised races, with whom the 
loss, say of Memory, is the loss of a soul. Absence of mind may be another mode of 
losing your soul. To lose your shadow even by having your likeness taken, may be the 
means of losing your soul, as is yet believed! Or it may be, that under the affliction of 
bronchitis or asthma, you run very great risk of losing your prana or soul of breath. 
Under such circumstances a Fijian would lie down and call upon his departing soul to 
come back to his bosom; or the Karen magician will run after the sick man's butterfly, as 
they call his wavering, wandering soul of breath, and pray it to return. And if the spiritdoctor 
should fail to catch the butterfly (or psyche), because it has crossed the boundary 
of life and death, he tries to capture the Astral Shade of a living man which may be 
flitting about whilst its owner is sleeping with his six other souls (or any lesser number) 
in the land of dreams; so that when he wakes he sickens, pines, and dies, because his 
other souls will besure to go in search of the missing Astral Shade—or envelope—for 
cover! We smile at such simplicity, but— when Plato, or any other metaphysical perverter 
of primitive thought, sets forth the doctrine that our knowledge is a matter of memory, 
and our science a mere reminiscence, that is but a sophism founded on this fourth soul of 
the early philosophy, which dates from the time when the faculty of memorising was the 
highest recognised type of mind or a soul. 

Again, one form of the adult or masculine soul was considered to be a secretion of the 
marrow, the Sanskrit mearg, or majja-rasa, the sap of life— the marrow of manhood, or 
soul of horn and bone. An Accra saying has it that "marrow is the father of blood"! In the 
earliest biology, blood was the mother of marrow. With this change of view it was fabled 
that the woman was created from the man, as Eve was taken from the bone of Adam, or 
derived from the soul of his bone, considered to be masculine, and, as such, a form of the 
fifth soul. Here we can trace yet another doctrinal development. At this stage fat and oil 
were offered to the dead, as a type of the marrow of life, and soul of bone: the fat that 
was placed in the cups on the tombstones of the buried dead. To this day the Red Indians 
sacredly place a lump of fat in the mouth of the corpse prepared for the grave; and the 
Romanists anoint the dying with the oil called "extreme unction. " In Egypt the very 
divinity of Horus consisted in the preservation of the holy oil on his face; he who was the 
anointed or the greased, i.e., the Christ (Records of the Past, 10, 164); he who was 
"raised from the dead through (and as) the glory of the Father"; and whose earliest 
advent was in the male nature, as the anointed at the time of puberty. Hence fat or oil was 
used as a bone-type of the primitive soul of man— the sole bone from which the first 
woman ever was created. This, the fifth soul, was at one time the quintessence of a man! 
When the brain had been identified as the physical basis, or matter of mind, the sixth soul 
was then derived from this Ritual (chap, lxxviii.), the Osirified deceased says,— "Horus 
has come to me out of my father Osiris!" "He has come to me out of the brains of his 
head!" That was as the nous of the Gnostics, the reveal er of an intellectual soul, who in 
Egypt is the god Ptah, or Putah, the opener, whom I elsewhere identify with Buddha in 
India. The Hindu Buddhi is the sixth soul, and Putah is lord of the sixth creation: he is 
also known as the "wisdom of the first intellect. " (See "Natural Genesis," section 9.) 
The Seventh soul was derived from the individualised fatherhood, which was represented 
by the father Arum for the first time in the Egyptian mythology— Arum being equivalent 



to the Buddhist Atma, the creative soul. Atum of the seventh creation represents the 
eternal—he inspires the breath of life everlasting, and is called the one sole God without 
change. At this stage of attainment the soul exults that it is created forever, and is a soul 
beyond time. The deceased exclaims, "Shu causes me to shine as a living lord, and to be 
made the Seventh when he comes forth]" "I am the one born o/Sevekh!" and Sevekh 
means the sevenfold or seventh, the type of attainment, as the seventh of the total series. 
This "is he who comes out sound (in death)— the Unknown is his name. " The "mystery of 
this soul made by the gods" is described as being, as it were, "self-existence"— i.e. of the 
permanent entity attained at last. It is called the "reserved soul, " the "engendered of the 
gods, who provided it with its shapes. Inexplicable is the genesis. It is the greatest of 
secrets. " (Rit. ch. 15.) 

In this way the seven souls were identified in Egypt, and may be formulated as— (1) the 
Soul of Blood, (2) the Soul of Breath, (3) the Shade or Covering Soul, (4) the Soul of 
Perception, (5) the Soul of Pubescence, (6) the Intellectual Soul, (7) the Spiritual Soul. 

The first was formative. 

The second soul breathed. 

The third soul enveloped. 

The fourth soul perceived. 

The fifth soul procreated. 

The sixth soul reproduced intellectually. 

The seventh perpetuated permanently. 

And at every one of these seven stages of development there was a fresh outgrowth of 
mythical legend or mystical representation— just as there might be a new efflorescence at 
the seven ascending knots of a bamboo cane. Much of this, however, has been shown in 
my "Natural Genesis, " and cannot be repeated now. 

But because the primitive and archaic man recognised and laid hold of seven elements, 
one after another, in the shape of form, breath, corporeal soul, perception, pubescent soul, 
intellectual soul, and an enduring soul, as a mode of identifying his physical elements and 
mental qualities— that does not make him resolvable into a number of elementary spirits 
after death, as if falsely imagined and maintained by the Esoteric Buddhists. There never 
were seven souls of blood, of breath, of cover, of perception, of the animal, intellectual, 
and spiritual nature which could have passed into another world as seven elementary 
spirits. These phantom likenesses of natural facts belonging to our past selves have no 
more power than photographs for each to become a future self. The shadows projected by 
the Seven did not, and could not, become spiritual beings in another world. They were 
only types for use in the mental world. They were a number of types, seven lines in an 
upward series, each of which served, for the time being, to denote the element at the time 
identified with or as the soul. We may look upon them as the seven lines of an ascending 
high- water mark. The seven elements in the nature of man never could become anything 
more than seven types, according to an ascertained mode of typology; whereas the 
Esoteric Buddhist continues them as seven potential spirits of a man, the elementaries of 
another life, who may either attain the immortality of a united and permanent entity there, 
in some far-off future, or fail for lack of power to persist, and finally die out altogether. 
That is not a vision of the future, human or spiritual; it is but looking in a camera obscura 
held in front, which reflects in some dim and distorting manner a picture of the past that 
lies behind. We shall no more deposit seven, or even two, souls in death than Oliver 
Cromwell could have left behind him two skulls, found in two rival museums, one of 
which (the smaller of the two) was said to have been his skull when he was a boy! 
These is nothing in the nature of things known or prefigured to warrant us in assuming a 
fundamental and enduring difference in the constituent quality of beings who belong to 



the same species. Nature gives no hint that we can either engender a force or destroy a 
faculty of persisting that may be called immortal —no hint that we can commit eternal 
suicide, and put an end to existence, any more than we could initiate our own beginning. 
It is here, as so often elsewhere, that an ancient mode of expression has become the 
modern mould of thought. The Esoteric Buddhists, like the primitive Christians, have 
been beguiled by the typology which they have failed to interpret. Of course, if you only 
credit an undeveloped being with the human form, the life of breath, the astral shade, and 
a twinkle of terrestrial intelligence, you can easily establish a doctrine of conditional 
immortality, but I affirm that it is solely on the plan of this primitive map of man, which 
was only tentatively true. There never was a time when the adult male did not possess at 
least five of the seven principles or souls—those of blood, breath, shade, perception, and 
the animal soul —howsoever small his intellect may have been. At least four of these 
souls— the soul of blood, breath, intelligence, and reproduction— belong to the animal in 
common with man; and so we find four souls are ascribed to the Bear by the Sioux 
Indians. The only possible human elementary spirit is the child that died before it came of 
age, and that is identifiably extant— in short, the seven were not souls in the flesh that 
when out of it could become seven orders of spirits objective to man. Seven elements, 
seven principles in seven degrees of the one life's development, became seven 
personalities or persons solely as a mode of expression, a classification in accordance 
with these primitive types. And being elements, when spoken of as personages they 
naturally become seven elementaries; and being elementaries in this biological sense of 
the true Esoteric teaching, they get mixed up with the seven powers of the elements or 
elementals and their prototypes, which never did, and never could, have a personal 
existence— never were living beings. Hence the dire confusion amongst the modern 
echoes of the ancient wisdom, and the indefiniteness of Esoteric Buddhism, on the 
subject of elementals and elementaries. 

In the "Natural Genesis" I have traced the seven powers of the elements to their origin in 
external phenomena. The seven elementaries in the nature of man may also be followed 
as far as they will go. 

In the, Inscription of Una (Records of the Past; 2, 8), these Seven Souls of the Pharaoh are 
spoken of as being invoked "more than all the Gods. " These were the Divine Ancestors, 
the Manes, who were worshipped in Egypt by the "Shus-en-Har, " or followers of Horus, 
for thirteen hundred years before the time of Menes. Being Seven in Number, they are 
identical with the Seven Manus, Rishis, Elohim, and other Hebdomads found elsewhere. 
Their origin was in this wise. The Seven, who preceded the Eighth, being looked upon as 
progenitors of the one-enduring Soul, the Horus, Christ or Buddha, became a form of the 
Ancestors, or Manes; the nature of which has to be partly determined by the number 
Seven. They never were the Spirits of Individual Ancestors! They originated as seven 
human Elementaries, and not as Ghosts that made their appearance in a group of seven. 
These seven, being correlated and combined with the seven elemental forces recognised 
in external nature, we have that perplexing mixture of Elementaries and Elementals, on 
which subject we are told the Adepts are very diffident. 

The Septenary of souls can be traced from first to last by means of the Egyptian doctrine 
of transformation. Thus the blood source that formed the embryo was quickened and 
transformed into the soul that breathed. The breathing soul attained cover, and 
transformed into the corporeal soul of shade; this transformed into an Intelligence. The 
intelligent youth transformed into the adult, when the animal soul, or pro-creative spirit, 
manifested at puberty. The adult soul transformed into the Hebrew Neshamah, the wise 
soul, or the Hindu Buddhi, the soul of ascertainment, and this into the soul that makes to 
re-live, which was represented by the God Atum, in whom the fatherhood was 
individualized at last as the begetter of an eternal soul; also by the Hebrew Adam, whose 
head reached up to the seventh Heaven. This doctrine of transformation, and the unifying 



of various individualities into one personality, puts an end to the septenary, and to the 
diverse destinations after death of several human principles, which must have already 
attained totality by unity, in order that there might be a personality, or ego, in this life. 
Not one of the Seven Souls had obtained the permanent personality, and, as they were but 
seven rudimental factors in the development of an ultimate Soul, they could not become 
Seven Spirits as realities, or Apparitions, in another life. Each older self was merged in 
the now, and, therefore, the seven could neither be simultaneous nor contemporary, 
except when absorbed in the oneness of unity. 

Hermes describes the one soul of the universe as entering into creeping things, and 
transforming into the soul of watery things, and this into the soul of things that live on the 
land; and airy ones are changed into men; and human souls that lay hold of immortality 
are changed into spirits, and so they ascend up to the region of the fixed stars (or gods), 
which is the eighth sphere; and this is the most perfect glory of the soul! But this was as 
the one soul of life, not as the eight, or seven individual souls. The eighth was the 
immortal blossom on the human branch. 

The worst kind of haunting in this world is not done by the spirits of dead people, but by 
the phantoms of defunct ideas; the shadows cast upon the cloud-curtain of the hereafter 
by those things which were only types and figures of human realities here—not things in 
themselves from the first. And these seven, or other number of other selves, belonging to 
the one personality, have left their shadows in the domain of metaphysic, which is 
fundamentally fractured by this splitting up of the one personality into separate selves, 
whether sevenfold, fivefold, fourfold, threefold, or only secondary. Also, these ghosts of 
primitive physics are beginning to walk in our midst, and are trying to pass themselves 
off upon us as genuine spirit-phenomena. The Buddhist difference between personality 
and individuality was necessitated, and is explained by the individuality which may 
include a seven-fold form, or passage of the personality; seven persons in one ego, like 
the "Three Persons and one God" in the Trinity. In the process of doctrinal development, 
objective re-birth in a series of human lives, or spirits, has been substituted for the rebirth 
of the ego in personality at the different stages and conversions of the one being, 
whereas the original re-births were subjective, whether biological or psychical, and 
limited to the one life alone, in its successive stages of transformation. 
Besides which, the Seven Souls are all summed up in an eighth. 

This eighth to the seven is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, where the numbers of 
the Gnosis constitute Wisdom. The Beast, who is an Eighth, is also of the Seven! In 
Egypt it was the lunar Taht-Smen, the eighth, or the sun-god with the seven souls; in 
India, the god with seven arms. The eighth is also represented by the Buddha, who is the 
manifestor for the seven Buddhas, or Manus, and by the Gnostic Christ, who is called the 
eight-rayed star of the pleroma, or god-head, composed of seven earlier powers, of whom 
it is is said.— "Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on 
them, the whole pleroma of ALons, with one design and one desire, and with the 
concurrence of Christ and the holy spirit, their father also setting the seal of his approval 
on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest 
beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the 
whole, they produced a being of most consummate beauty, the very star of the pleroma, 
and the perfect fruit (of it), namely, Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of 
Saviour, and Christ, and, patronymically, Logos, and All Things, because he was formed 
from the contributions of all. " Such is the Gnostic account of the Christ as the eighth one, 
in whom the Seven Souls culminated. The seven spirits were also continued in the 
Gnostic system as the seven angels who convey the eternal soul to the human creature. 
You may see them in Didron's Christian Iconography as the Seven Doves which hover 
round the Virgin Mary, who carries the Christ in embryo—he who, as the eighth, became 
superior to the angels. The dove was also said by the Gnostics to represent Christ as the 



eight-fold one, or the illustrious Ogdoad; the number of the Dove being 801 in Greek 
letters. Hence the descent of the Dove that abode on Jesus when he attained the Christhood; 
where the symbol proves and identifies the typical and non-historical nature of the 
transaction, and the Gnostic character of the cumulative Christ. 
The Ass, a Typhonian type of lunar phenomena, was likewise a representative of the 
Word or Logos that was reproduced as the Eighth—like the repeating note in the musical 
scale. It is well known that the bray of the donkey is just an octave in its range; and this 
made it an utterer of the Word or Logos, who was the Eighth. We read in the Ritual (ch. 
125) that "Great words are spoken by the Ass!" And in old Egyptian the Ass has the 
name of Iu or Iao. The Eighth was the Seventh Soul, as first Person in the Hebdomad, the 
father-God afterwards reproduced as his own Son. This was Iu-em-hept (hept=7) in 
Egypt; the Ass-headed Iao-Sabaoth and Iao-Chnubis of the Gnostics. When expressed by 
means of external phenomena it was the Solar vivifier who was reproduced monthly, or 
annually, by the Mother-Moon; whence the re-birth or resurrection that is still dependent 
on the full moon of Easter; he who became Lord of the first day, or Sunday, instead of the 
seventh day, or Saturday. 

The divine Fatherhood being founded at last in the God, or supreme one of the seven 
souls, whether called Atum-Ra, or Osiris in Egypt, Vishnu in India, Adam in the Greek 
Mysteries, or Jehovah amongst the Jews, his manifestor was impersonated as the divine 
son of the father-God, in whom the octave is attained, and the God-head of all the powers 
or souls is reproduced just as the eighth note in music is the note of repetition, 
reproduction, or re-appearance. And this eighth one was the Christ, as Iu-em-hept, the 
son of Atum, who is designated the "Eternal Word." This eighth one, as manifestor of the 
seven, was also Har-Khuti, in Egypt, the Lord of Lights and of the Glorified Elect, the 
God whose Sign is the Pyramid - figure of 7; Krishna Agni, or Buddha in India; Assur in 
Assyria; Pan, of the seven pipes, in Greece; and the Gnostic Christ, called Totem, the All, 
who was formed from the contributions of all the Seven, identical with the Buddha, who 
is the outcome of the seven Buddhas, the result of their "Collective Intelligence, " called 
Adi-Buddha, or Buddha from the beginning, in allusion to this process of development; 
and whose symbol, like that of the Christ, and of Horus, is the star with eight rays! The 
Christ, or Mithras, or Horus, represented that height, or octave of attainment, to which the 
Gnostic adept aspired, and which Paul designates the full-grown Man, and the measure of 
the stature of the fulness of the Christ, or a sort of divine Octavius! 
Such was the nature of the "Wisdom" that a Gnostic like Paul, Epopt and perfect, spoke 
amongst the perfected; and it would have been useless to have spoken such among AGnostics 
who were of the fleshly faith. This was the mystical Christ who came BY and 
AS the Holy Spirit; so Jesus is transformed into the Christ when the Holy Spirit descends 
upon him in his Baptism! But, after this transformation, it is said in the same Gospel that 
the Holy Spirit was not yet extant (or communicated), because Jesus was not yet glorified. 
To the genuine Gnostics this holy spirit always had been extant; but here we see its very 
existence made altogether dependent upon the personality and death of Jesus in the 
process of re-dating it and making him the author of it historically. Barnabas knew better. 
He identifies the Christ with the Man of the eighth Soul, who rose again on the Eighth 
Day of Creation! 

Here the height was synonymous, and is identical, with the number eight! This height is 
represented in the Buddhist, Gnostic, and Mithraic mysteries by a ladder with eight steps, 
the eighth, or height, being the top of attainment, the place of the perfected; and so the 
octave was completed at last in Buddha-hood, in Elijah-hood, in Christ-hood, or the 
divine man-hood, of the pre-Christian religions; such likewise being the natural genesis 
of the eight ways and eight paths of Buddhism. 

The Gnostics said salvation was brought by the Ogdoad; and the Saviour personified was 
the mystical Octavius: the superior man of the eighth creation! It is said by Peter in the 



Clementine Recognitions that there was an Ideal Man who had the right to the name of 
Messiah, because the Jews called their Kings the Christ, the Romans Caesar, and the 
Egyptians Pharaoh. That is true. Each of these DID represent the same original type. The 
Roman Caesar, the hairy, pubescent, or Anointed One, was an impersonation of this 
supreme soul; who happens to be the Eighth also by name in Octavianus, who was the 
first Emperor! (Born B.C. 63, called Augustus B.C. 27.) According to the Christianised 
Legends of the Sybil, the Romans wished to adore Octavianus as a divinity, but the Sybil 
showed him the Coming Christ in the Virgin's lap, whereupon he refused to be 
worshipped himself, took off his diadem, and adored the future child! Nevertheless, 
Octavianus was just as good an historical realisation of the mythical and mystical Christ 
as any personal Jesus could be; or, rather, both were equally impossible for those who 
knew. 

Another Gnostic mode of illustrating this mystery may be pointed out in passing. The 
supreme personality was attained in the eighth degree of ascension, and the supreme sign 
of that personality, the pronoun I, was the ultimate outcome and representative sign of 
seven vowel sounds. Our letter I was the ai, ei, eta or ida of the Coptic, which has the 
numeral value of eight. Seven vowels, said the Gnostics, glorify the Word, and these 
were uttered in a single sound, in an O or an I. Thus the octave was completed, the height 
attained and expressed in a single letter sign, the I of Personality. The God was also 
invoked with adorations in the Greek Mysteries; possibly with the "8 Adorations," which 
are Egyptian and Chinese. This was another sign of the Eighth Soul, having the numerical 
value of Eight in hundreds. The sign survives as the vocative "Oh!" of religious 
aspiration. 

According to the Gnosis, then, the Seven were only a group of phenomena which evolved 
the enduring entity at last, the eternal soul itself, into which they were transubstantiated in 
death; the re-appearing, manifesting spirit that was personified as the fully awakened 
Buddha, or the mystical Christ of the Mysteries. Such was the Finding of the Christ as a 
human product, which was first demonstrated by Spiritualism—the type having been 
continued by combining the mythical with the mystical! This was the "True Logos" 
which Philo and Celsus wrote about, the "Heavenly and indestructible offspring of a 
Divine and Incorporeal nature, " the Gnostic "Light which lighteth every one that cometh 
into the world, " not that earthly Shadow cast upon the background of ignorance called the 
Historical Christ. Such was the origin and mode of building up, stage by stage, the Christ 
of the Gnosis; the divine man, the man from heaven, described by Paul, the Christ of 
those who knew, the evolution of which has now been traced step by step to its 
culmination; the Christ of that spiritual existence beyond the grave, which was 
demonstrated in the mysteries of mediumship, who was called the son of God, also the 
son of man, because the son as manifestor implied the father as begetter! This was in the 
mystical phase. In the moral aspect the Horus, Christ, or Buddha was set forth as a model 
to all men, the highest type of attainment for those who were climbing up the ladder of 
eight rounds. It was not the portrait of any one individual who could attain perfection 
once and for all as the representative of all men. That was the fatal mistake of the 
Christians—the men who did not know— as it is equally the error of those Esoterists who 
only pretend to know. The earliest mode of attaining this Christhood, or Buddhahood, 
was by cultivating the trance-conditions and becoming a spirit amongst spirits. This was 
moralised in a second phase when attainment was made dependent upon the practice of 
certain saving virtues. In the final phase conversion to a belief in the Christian scheme 
has taken the place of both! 

It is positively provable that the Christ is but a type identical with the Horus, the Iao- 
Heptaktis, the Buddha or Pan of the prior cultus. According to Irenaeus, the Valentinian 
Gnostics maintained the identity of the Saviour with Pan, who is called Christum in the 
Latin text. Pan was, of course, an earlier personification of the All, or "All Things." The 



type and origin are one, under whatsoever name. Consequently Pan, or Aristaeus, with the 
seven-fold pipe in his hand, and the sheep on his shoulders, is the Christ, the Saviour, the 
Good Shepherd pourtrayed in the Roman Catacombs, instead of the historic Jesus, whose 
picture is not there. 

The Christ or Buddha of the Gnostics could not become flesh once for all, as he was the 
supreme outcome and consummate flower of all flesh, in the culminating stage of 
spiritual attainment in life, and spiritual apparition after death. The Christ being an 
immortal principle, and very life itself, could not be put to death; so that "redemption by 
the death of Christ" is a fundamental fallacy from the first. Here, as in other matters, the 
essence of all the present writer has to say is, that a. physical fulfillment is always and 
everywhere the doctrine of delusion. Historic personality could not authenticate the 
existence of the Buddha. It had no meaning when applied to the Christ. They alone could 
accept such a version who were non-Gnostics and non-Spiritualists, entirely ignorant of 
the nature of the manifestor. It was the type of immortality, not as the mummy-image on 
earth, but as the starry Horus; as the Ka or glorified apparition that reappeared through 
the dark of death; as the risen Christ who rose upon the horizon of the resurrection; the 
Horus, whose name denotes the one who ascends as a spirit. For, the Egyptian, "only one 
who comes forth from the body" applies to the spirit in life, as well as in death. The art of 
leaving the body was common to the old dark races, and is practised by the rudest 
indigenes of many lands. The Khonds call it the art oiMleepa or transformation. An 
Egyptian artist named Iritsen (11th Dynasty) says he knows the "mystery of the Divine 
Word, " and "how to produce the mode (or form) of issuing forth and coming in. " 
Whether in this life or another, the "Wise Spirits" were all one. "He has become as one of 
us" is said of Adam when he had become Dead as "Wise Spirits." It was this so-called 
Magical Art of producing abnormal conditions, and the faculty of Second Sight, that 
finally established the existence of a permanent individuality or soul beyond the Seven 
Elementaries. And it was the mystical Christ, so established, who alone could bring 
immortality to light; but not by a physical resurrection from the tomb. "I am the 
resurrection and the life" applies only to the principle or spirit—the 8th, as the one that 
rises again, the "only one, " as the Ritual has it, "who ever comes from the body"— the 
typical eternal who appears as the deathless one upon the other side of the grave! This 
Christ cannot be made Historical or Personal FOR US, —only IN US! That is the doctrine 
of Paul, of Philo, and the Gnostics, opposed to the Christian doctrine of the physical or 
fleshly faith. 

The ultimate soul, type or phase of existence, then, was not born as a mental concept, nor 
as the result of an induction, nor as the dream-shadow made objective; it was practically 
demonstrated as scientific matter -of- fact! The Christ of the Gnostics, of Philo- Judaeus, 
and of Paul, the heavenly man, or second Adam, who came from Above, was no mere 
doctrinal abstraction, but the spirit or ghost that could be seen,— as it was seen by Paul in 
visions— and made to constitute his own special mystery; and always had been seen by 
those who possessed the second sight! even as it continues to be seen by the abnormal 
seers of to-day— which ghost, according to the evidence collected by the Society for 
Psychical Research, is also visible at times to ordinary vision. In pourtraying their Ka 
image of the spiritual Ego, the glorified second-self, as a type of the Eternal Being, the 
Egyptians represented that which their Seers saw, and you may trust them for the truth in 
this, as in everything else, they were so entirely truthful. Indeed, I think the mind of man 
has never had so profound a sense of truth and verity as in the Egyptian phase. Through 
life they put their trust in truth, and it was their principle of cohesion in death. The 
Osirified deceased says, "I am the Lord of Truth, living it daily. I am spiritualised, I have 
become a soul! I have touched truth. " Their typical Eternal is called the sole being who 
lives by truth. Before the tribunal of eternal truth the accused pleads that he has not even 
altered a story in the telling of it! That alone was true which is for ever; and all along the 



line of progress they had groped in search of that which was ultimately true, and true for 
ever,— the exact opposite of the Hindu Maya, the untrue, or delusion. And they vouch for 
the fact that the Ghost of Man is a living reality —the final reality —the Horus or Christ. In 
comparison with those who know because they see that there is a continuity of existence 
beyond the change called death, because they have the faculty to perceive the dead as 
living phantasms embodied in a rarer form, we are all of us on the blind side of things! 
They know because they see; and we deny because we do not know. With the savage or 
the civilised seeing makes all the difference, and cuts short all question of the possibility 
of seeing. 

But to return. Esoteric Buddhism tells us the higher principles of the series which go to 
constitute man are not fully developed in the mankind with which we are as yet familiar. 
Whereas this system of thought, this mode of representation, this septenary of powers, in 
various aspects, had been established in Egypt at least seven thousand years ago, as we 
learn from certain allusions to Arum found in the inscriptions lately discovered at 
Sakkarah. I say in various aspects because the Gnosis of the Mysteries was at least sevenfold 
in its nature— it was Elemental, Biological, Elementary (human), Stellar, Lunar, 
Solar, and Spiritual—and nothing short of a grasp of the whole system can possibly enable 
us to discriminate the various parts, distinguish one from the other, and determine the 
which and the what, as we try to follow the symbolical Seven through their several 
phases of character. 

The Egyptian Ritual represents the drama of the doctrinal developments relating to the 
passage of the Deceased, with his trials and transformations in the underworld, which 
furnished the matter of the later mysteries, including the Greek, Mithraic, and Christian. 
In this, the Deceased plays over again the whole seven characters that went to the making 
up of the one personality, which became permanent in the eighth nature. He is 
reconstructed for the other life in exact accordance with the seven principles or souls with 
which he was constructed in this life. On the day of reckoning souls, the seven 
constituents have to be collected, counted, and united in one. According to the dramatic 
representation, immortality depended on totality. The seven chief organs of life, or 
vehicles of Soul, were all preserved as types. And when put together again, according to 
pattern, he is as we say "all there, " with the whole of his parts and members sound. The 
soul could exist independently of the heart, but there was no proper reconstruction 
possible without the heart being literally "in its right place. " It was thus they acted the 
Mystery. The Deceased cries, "Do not take my soul!" (Ba.) "Do not detain my shade!" 
(Khaba.) "Open the path to my shade, and my soul, and my intelligence (Akhu) to see the 
great God on the day of reckoning souls. " One of the Genii says to him, "I join together 
thy bones for thee. I revive thy members for thee; I bring thee thy heart, and put it in its 
place. " Then the Osirified deceased exclaims, "I am the reckoning which goes in"— "and 
the account which comes out"— i.e., when summed up and VERIFIED. When put together 
and divinized as the compound image of the Seven, it is said of the Eighth Soul, "Thy 
Individuality is permanent! " Having attained his sevenfold totality, he is the Eighth one, 
at peace as an enduring spirit, one of the Verified. The deceased is thus greeted, "Hail 
Osiris! thou hast come— thy ka (his spiritual image, or divine likeness) with thee!" and he 
is now hailed as the only one ever coming forth from the body, the foremost of those who 
belong to the solar race; the sun being the supreme type of the soul, as the Vivifier for 
ever. He has culminated in that unity which Spiritualism enables us to start with, without 
this prolegomena of the ancient physics. He makes the significant remark,— "I hasten to 
escape the Shades!" whose shadows have been utilised by our friends, the Theosophists, 
to explain away, or minimise the extant phenomena called Spiritualistic. 
"The Third principle, or astral body," says Mr. Sinnett, "is that which is at times taken for 
the ghost of departed persons! Also, it may exude from the body of a spiritualistic 
medium, but it is no more a being than the cloud in the sky can become an animal, 



although it may show a spurious semblance in its form." This is to introduce the direst 
confusion, and to utterly mystify that which is sufficiently mystical! The corporeal or 
third soul of the series, only persists as a type, because it was once the highest 
representative of the soul. Souls that passed off into spirit- world when the soul was but a 
shade or covering soul, did not become sunshades in heaven nor fire-proofs in hell—nor 
can they issue from the medium's body as such, even through the sunshade is retained as 
a pictorial type of that soul! Yet the sunshade has an equal right to be classed among the 
Elementaries with the Astral Shade, or any other symbol of the soul. Indeed, the Siamese 
have the sunshade as a seven-fold type. Their sacred umbrella, that used to be the 
sunshade of royalty, had seven tiers to it, which represented the seven heavens in the 
mythical phase, and the seven souls in the mystical sense. The spirit that returned to earth 
when the soul was the corporeal shade, and the third was the highest in the series, would 
be the Shade; this being the corporeal soul, when it appeared on a visit to the living it was 
supposed to go back to the body in the tomb, and to pass away altogether as the body 
decayed. It could not go to heaven when there was no heaven made out to go to. Being 
third in the series, this would become a ghost that only lived up to the third generation—as 
we find it among the Zulu Kaffirs! But the shade never could be one of seven souls 
emanating from the body of a medium. In such a climate as ours it would be economical 
if every medium could materialise and spread out a covering in that way! Of course, if 
you postulate or pourtray a soul at that immature stage of development, it will be without 
mind or memory, language, or individuality. It will be a shadow indeed! And so it 
reappears amongst the ghosts of Esoteric Buddhism, but it is not one of the Intelligences 
known to modern Spiritualism. We may as well say that the soul of blood became a red 
mouse, and the soul that fed on blood became a hawk, and so on all through the series of 
types; which they did according to the system of representation, although not in reality. 
The Sevens were all correlated, the seven elemental powers, with the seven elements in 
man; and these seven souls, or elemental parts of man, were assigned to seven creators, or 
gods, and considered as seven creations in mythology, each of which had its zootype, 
such as the red mouse, the hawk, the ape, jackal, serpent, beetle, and crocodile. Seven 
zootypes having been adopted to represent seven elements in external nature, these or 
their equivalents were continued to express the seven elements or souls in man. The 
Shrew mouse was an Egyptian type of the first formation, the soul No. 1, the "blind 
Horns, " as he was called; the hawk, of the second soul, that of breath and of sight; the 
monkey, of reflection (the other self); the jackal, of memory; the serpent (or goose which 
laid the egg), of the transformation into adultship; the frog (or beetle), of the 
transformation into an intellect; and the crocodile, Sevekh, which is number seven, into 
the Seer unseen, the soul as supreme one of the seven souls. Now, as a soul was once 
typified by the red mouse, it is certain that the soul or ghost will be seen as a red mouse; 
and accordingly this soul was seen as the red mouse that came out of the sleeper's mouth, 
in a German story. This red mouse of a soul is also mentioned by Goethe in "Faust." That 
is the red mouse that typified the primary soul of blood. The German goddess Holda, the 
receiver of children's souls, is represented as commanding a multitude of mice. 
Moreover, the mouse is sure to survive in a sort of spirit-world; and here we have it. The 
moon was a re-birthplace for the most elementary or rudimentary souls, because it was 
the first step on the planetary ladder, above the sublunary sphere. And so we find the 
myth of souls in the moon in the shape of little mice. The Dakota Indians say the waning 
of the moon is caused by multitudes of mice that are nibbling at it and causing its 
disappearance— the mouse being an Egyptian emblem of disappearance. 
The mouse was a type of the first Horus, or soul No. 1. The hawk is a type of the soul of 
breath, or soul No. 2, because as Hor-Apollo explains, the hawk drinks blood, never 
water, and the soul is sustained by blood. As there was a soul that fed on blood in this 
life, the soul emaned from the body in death at that stage of thought and expression, will 



continue the type in another phase and sphere; so we have a soul or spirit of the dead that 
is supposed to come out of the corpse to suck the blood of the living; and the origin of the 
Vampire, that only lives by drinking human blood, has to be sought at this depth of 
rootage; for the blood-sucking demons of various kinds are held to be human souls, and 
not the elemental powers personified. If you consider (as I do) the ghost to be an 
objective fact in nature, the power to demonstrate, and the vision for seeing, may have 
existed from the earliest times, and there would be apparitions when the biology had only 
identified the blood with the soul of life! Now there is not only evidence of a haunting 
spirit at this stage—a soul of blood— a gory ghost, as the Vampire, but certain evil spirits, 
when conquered by a Mage like Solomon, always fled to, and were drowned in, the Red 
Sea, which was their fabled home and birthplace. That is the Egyptian Red Lake of 
Primordial Matter! In the Book of the Dead, certain undeveloped and rudimentary souls 
are sent back again, doomed to be resolved into the primal element, and are said in the 
texts to be suppressed in blood; they make their typical return to that from which they 
came. 

Each of the Seven Principles, or Appetites, or souls, had the physical prototype, that was 
separately preserved by the Egyptians— the brain, tongue, heart, stomach, and other 
vehicles of life. Thus when the Kroo negroes hold that the stomach of a man ascends to 
heaven after death, we can understand it as a representative of one of the souls, or 
appetites. This soul of the stomach would need to be fed. No wonder, then, if we should 
hear of a demon in the shape of a stomach that goes about seeking whom it may devour. 
This is the Kephu of the Karens, a wandering wizard's stomach supposed to prey upon the 
souls of men. 

Raw flesh and blood were offered to the uncivilised and gory ghost. But in the second 
phase a Soul of Breath would be more refined and not considered capable of consuming 
material food. At this stage we hear of the spirits snuffing the vapours and steam of 
victuals, inhaling the essences and smelling the aroma of food or the fragrance of flowers. 
In fine, we see provisions cold and hot offered— some things to eat and others to smell— 
the body and spirit of aliment, so to say, being presented to the Corporeal Soul of Matter 
and the less palpable Soul of Breath. 

The shrew-mouse, or the bird, has no likeness to the human being, but the ape has a little. 
And at this third stage the nearest likeness to the human is adapted to express the other, or 
reflected, self, at the stage of the third soul; the Shade in Egypt is synonymous with the 
God Shu, one of whose types is the Great Ape. The Ape, as a type of the Soul, may 
account for the African superstition of men being changed into monkeys after death; the 
primitive symbol having been literalised. Now, Esoteric Buddhism professes to give 
some account of the seven races of man (which are founded on the seven souls) and of 
the evolution of the elementary into the human. In his third stage we are told that the 
"Coming man had developed at fir st the form rather of a giant ape than of a true man, 
but with intelligence coming more and more into the ascendant. " Here we can clutch the 
proof that the third race is a continuation of the third soul, and that the basis of both is to 
be found in Egyptian typology; for the giant ape in Egypt was the type of the third 
elementary, the God Shu, or shade, the monkey-man on the monuments! 
The Marawi say the souls of bad men after death will become jackals; and the jackal was 
another of the elementaries, the one who possibly represented the fourth soul, that of 
memory, as he was made the remembrancer and recorder of the gods. 
The soul was also reckoned to be a birth of time! Hermes alludes to every soul that is in 
flesh by the wonderful working of the gods in circles! In the Ritual the deceased says, 
"My soul is from the beginning, from the reckoning of years" --and he boasts that he has 
time in his body! Time is Seb, and the soul of Seb is the soul of pubescence— our soul No. 
5. The goose that laid the egg was a type of this soul! The goose being a representative of 
the soul born of time, an equivalent for the soul according to a symbolical mode of 



expression, you have only to continue that type in spirit-world or fairy-world for the 
goose to become identical with a spirit, and you may expect to find the goose amongst 
the elementaries— as in fact we do. In German faeryology, or the spiritualism of folk-lore, 
we find a class of earth-spirits, or wee folk, who visit the living; and when the ground is 
strewn with ashes overnight the footprints are supposed to be visible next morning as 
those of the goose or duck. Here the returning spirit is identifiable with the likeness of 
Seb, or with his type the goose, but it does not mean that the human soul came back upon 
the feet of a goose! The ancient typology was continued, and remains to be interpreted. 
Take it literally at any stage and you must be all wrong, as are those Esoteric Buddhists 
who have mistaken an ancient mode of expression for a reality, and continued it into the 
future of the human soul, and applied it to the development of the human race, in doing 
which they are but wandering in a mental wilderness that is dark overhead with the 
shadows of the past. 

The beetle was a type of our sixth soul, an emblem of transformation; and some of the 
primitive races held that a certain low class of spirits turn into beetles after death. 
The crocodile, whose Egyptian name is Sevekh, or seventh, was a type of intelligence, as 
the seventh soul, the supreme one of seven, because (so Plutarch says) it could see in the 
water when its eyelids were closed over the eyes. It was thus the seer unseen. In the 
Kaffir languages the crocodile and a spirit {i.e., a soul, or the intelligence) have the same 
name. It is said to be believed by some of the Inner Africans that when a child of their' s is 
born the mother gives birth to a crocodile at the same time. Here the Egyptian symbolism 
(over which I have spent a third of my lifetime) will enable us to interpret the meaning! 
These poor people intend to say their children are born with an intelligent soul, and the 
fact is expressed in the African language of typology. 

But the human soul in its upward ascent had not actually passed through the stages of the 
mouse, hawk, ape, jackal, goose, beetle, and crocodile; nor will it return to or in any such 
shapes; nor did it project seven such elementaries as its shadows into spirit- world; nor did 
any primitive race, whether savage, Egyptian, or Hindu, ever think these things. Nor were 
they evolutionists in the Darwinian sense. It was a mode of expression, still readable in 
the Ritual, where the speaker, in making his transformations of the soul, says— "I am the 
mouse, " "I am the hawk, " "I am the ape;" jackal, goose, or serpent; "I am the crocodile 
whose soul comes from men"— that is, as a type of intelligence; "I am the soul of the 
gods, " the Horus, or Christ, as the outcome of all. 

Moreover, each of these souls had its representative type of Sacrifice that was eaten in 
eucharistic rites, and these might be traced more or less from the Shrew-mouse, that was 
eaten by the Hebrews, down to the body and blood of Jesus eaten by the Christians, as a 
mystery of transubstantiation. 

It is in vain that the Pseudo-Esoterists try to saddle modern Spiritualism with this bestial 
set of acquaintances, elementaries, shadows, and shells as our relatives in another world. 
They are ignorant of the beginning, the natural genesis of this system of representation. 
They do not seem to know that the transformations of Buddha were of the same 
character, and originated in the same zoomorphic typology. The Buddha, or supreme 
soul, that reaches the top of attainment as the outcome of the previous seven, has in a 
sense been all seven, because of the one life running through them all—just as the mature 
man has been boy, babe, embryo. It consequently follows that whatsoever types the seven 
have been masked under, or represented by, may be applied to the Buddha as the 
ascending human soul. Hence he has various transmigrations and re-births, in which he 
emerges now as a bird, an ape, a frog—now as one kind of animal, now as another, 
because these were at first symbolic of the seven elements of body and soul that made up 
the totality of being— which elements in man, or in external nature, had been imaged by 
the zootypes of totemism that were continued as ideographs in a later phase of thought, 
and had no reference at all to any remote course of pre-human evolution on earth. 



The Seven Races of Men that have been sublimated and made Planetary by Esoteric 
Buddhism, may be met with in the Bundahish as (1) the earth-men; (2) water-men; (3) 
breast-eared men; (4) breast-eyed men; (5) one-legged men; (6) bat-winged men; (7) men 
with tails. But these were never real races of men. 

These are they who were created in the likenesses of the Seven Elementals, who were 
represented by Zootypes, which were afterwards continued in the heraldry of Tribal 
Totemism. Mr. Sinnett's instructors have mistaken these shadows of the Past, for things 
human and spiritual. They are neither, and never were either. This mode of representation 
can be studied as intended typology in Egypt, whereas, in India, a land that is haunted 
with the phantoms of metaphysics, it has been perverted into a system of 
metempsychosis, and a doctrine of migration for the human soul. In the Egyptian 
Judgment scenes, it is common to see the wicked soul sent back as, or by means of, an 
unclean beast—the sow being the type of uncleanness. Such symbolical representation 
was made actual in India, where such souls are sent back to earth as beasts or reptiles. It 
is affirmed in the Book of Manu that "In whatever disposition a man accomplishes such 
and such an act, he shall reap the fruit in a body endowed with such and such a quality. " 
As Hor-Apollo says, the Egyptians denoted a people obedient to their king, by depicting a 
bee! and then the Jewish Rabbins, adopting the type, say the soul of a governor who 
exalts himself proudly above his people, goes into a bee! When the Jews speak of souls 
that migrate into beasts and birds, and Plato of souls being re-incarnated into birds and 
beasts, they are making unwarrantable use of the primitive typology. In the later 
teachings, conveyed by means of the ancient symbolism, it was threatened that the fleshly 
soul would be reborn as a mouse or an ass; the thief would become a rapacious rat; the 
coward, a reptile; the bloodthirsty tyrant a vulture, or devouring beast of prey; the lowest 
classes, into the vilest creatures. This is but the other side of the same mental coinage, 
and it is only to be understood as belonging to the same symbolism. All such primitive 
doctrines were indigenous to India, long ages before the latest Esoteric Buddhism was 
born; and here, as elsewhere, only in the earliest phases and physics, can we ever reach 
the root of the matter. So often the more abstract doctrines have no other foundation than 
this of perverted typology, the resulting metaphysical phantasmagoria being then put 
forth as an Esoteric revelation! That is, the mode or representation, which was only true 
as fable, has been moralized and made false in fact. An ancient mode of expression has 
become a modern mould of thought. 

I once had a singular experience with an incipient medium, who came to me at the 
moment when my mind was full of Egyptian hieroglyphics. After he had entered the state 
of trance, these images appeared to take shape and "go for him!" He seemed to be 
surrounded and pursued by the very animals I had just been copying. Because he at first 
mistook the mental pictures for objective realities! And this is exactly what has been done 
by the pseudo-Esoterists represented by Mr. Sinnett. 

The natural genesis was physical and followable; the expression was typical. In the later 
metaphysical phase we have only the shadow, the returning manes of the once living 
meaning, trying to pass itself off as a revelation of future reality. Metamorphosis of the 
soul was ancestral, biological, and figurative, at first; then it was continued in the 
astronomical allegory —both of which are omitted by the pseudo-Esoterists. And, lastly, it 
was made mystical by metaphysical assumption in the later systems of Esoteric 
hermeneutics; and now it is pretended that the last was first, and the uppermost stratum 
was primary, or, in the beginning, which it IS only in beginning to go back. 
In conclusion. It has been my literary lot to explore the past of human thought, and its 
modes of expression, somewhat thoroughly, as an evolutionary fundamentalist. The 
obscurity lessened by slow degrees. I began to see how the primary "types" of thought 
were originated of necessity, and for use; how they became the signs of expression in 
language and mythology; and how theology, by its perversions and misrepresentations, 



has instituted a reign of error throughout the whole domain of religion. But, I am not one 
of those who go back to rehabilitate the past, or resuscitate the religion of Osiris, or 
Hermes, or Buddha, any more than that assigned to Jesus by 300 sects of Christians. 
Neither am I at enmity with the Theosophists. I am ready to join hands with all who work 
for the universal brotherhood; and I am their best ally, if they only knew it. 
My desire is to gain all the knowledge the past can give, and supplement it with all that is 
known in the present, but with face set steadfastly toward the dawn of a still more 
luminous day of a larger knowledge, and of loftier out-look in the future! If we turn back 
to the past for our revelation and authoritative teaching, we are exalting the child as father 
to the man. The past is a region to explore, and learn of it all we can. It is impossible to 
understand the present without the profoundest knowledge of the past. Without a 
comprehension of the laws of evolution and development in the past, and of survival in 
the present, we can have no opinion ourselves that is of the least value to others. And 
then we want to get out of it, and away from it, by growth, individual and national, as fast 
and as far as ever we are able. They are blind guides who seek to set up the past as 
superior to the present, because they may have a little more than ordinary knowledge of 
some special phase of it! There were no other facts or faculties in nature for the Hindu 
adepts or Egyptian Rekhi than there are for us, although they may have brooded for ages 
and ages over those of a supra-normal kind. The faculties with which the Adepts can—as 
Mr. Sinnett says—read the mysteries of other worlds, and of other states of existence, and 
trace the current of life on our globe, are identical with those of our clairvoyants and 
mediums, however much more developed and disciplined they may be in the narrower 
grooves of ancient knowledge. Much of the wisdom of the past depends on its being held 
secret and Esoteric— on being "kept dark," as we say. It is like the corals, that live whilst 
they are covered over and concealed in the waters, but die on reaching day! 
Moreover, it is a delusion to suppose there is anything in the experience or wisdom of the 
past, the ascertained results of which can only be communicated from beneath the cloak 
and mask of mystery, by a teacher who personates the unknown accompanied by rites 
and ceremonies belonging to the pantomime and paraphernalia of the ancient medicine 
men. They are the cultivators of the mystery in which they seek to enshroud themselves, 
and live the other life as already dead men in this; whereas we are seeking to explore and 
pluck out the heart of the mystery. Explanation is the soul of science. They will tell you 
we cannot have their knowledge without living their life. But we may not all retire into a 
solitude to live the existence of ecstatic dreamers. Personally I do not want the 
knowledge for myself. These treasures I am in search of I need for others. I want to 
utilise both tongue and pen and printer's type; and if there are secrets of the purer and 
profounder life, we cannot afford them to be kept secret; they ask to be made universally 
known. I do not want to find out that I am a god in my inner consciousness. I do not seek 
the eternal soul of self. I want the ignorant to know, the benighted to become enlightened, 
the abject and degraded to be raised and humanized; and would have all means to that 
end proclaimed world-wide, not patented for the individual few, and kept strictly private 
from the many. I cannot join in the new masquerade and simulation of ancient mysteries 
manufactured in our time by Theosophists, Hermeneutists, pseudo-Esoterists, and 
Occultists of various orders howsoever profound their pretensions. The very essence of 
all such mysteries as are got up from the refuse leavings of the past is pretence, 
imposition, and imposture. The only interest I take in the ancient mysteries is in 
ascertaining how they originated, in verifying their alleged phenomena, in knowing what 
they meant on purpose to publish the knowledge as soon and as widely as possible. 
Public experimental research, the printing press, and a free-thought platform, have 
abolished the need of mystery. It is no longer necessary for Science to take the veil, as 
she was forced to do for security in times past. Neither was the ancient gnosis kept 
concealed at first on account of its profundity, so much as on account of its primitive 



simplicity. That significance which the esoteric misinterpreters try to read into it was not 
in the nature of it originally—always excepting the phenomena of Spiritualism. There is a 
regular manufacture of the old masters carried on by impostors in Rome. The modern 
manufacture of ancient mysteries is just as great an imposition, and equally sure to be 
found out. Do not suppose I am saying this, or waging war, on behalf of the mysteries 
called Christian, for I look upon them as the greatest imposition of all. Rome was the 
manufactory of old masters 1800 years ago. I am opposed to all man-made mystery, and 
all kinds of false belief. The battle of truth and error is not to be darkly fought now-adays 
behind the mask of secrecy. Darkness gives all its advantage to error; day light alone 
is in favour of truth! Nature is full of mystery; and we are here to make out the mysteries 
of Nature and draw them into day-light, not to cultivate and keep veiled the mysteries 
made by man in the day of his need or the night of his past. We want to have done with 
the mask of mystery and all the devious devilries of its double-facedness, so that we may 
look fully and squarely into the face of Nature for ourselves, whether in the past, present, 
or future. Mystery has been called the mother of abominations, but the abominations 
themselves are the superstitions, the rites and ceremonies, the dogmas, doctrines, delusive 
idealisms, and unjust laws that have been falsely founded on the ancient mysteries by 
ignorant literalisation and esoteric misinterpretation! 



NOTE TO LECTURE ON "PAUL" 

In quoting evidence of the double doctrine ascribed to Paul, I omitted one of the most 
conclusive illustrations of the fact. We read in Galatians iii. 13— "Christ hath redeemed us 
from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every 
one that hangeth on a Tree. " The object of hanging the Condemned One on the tree was 
to make him Accursed. But what says the voice of Paul the Gnostic in another text (Cor. 
xii. 3)?— "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus Accursed, and no man can 
say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Spirit. " That is, the Christ of the Gnosis could 
not become accursed, could not be hung upon a tree, and no Gnostic would say that Jesus 
was the KURIOS save in the mystical or esoteric sense. Here the Historic and Gnostic 
doctrines are directly antipodal. This again is the teaching of Paul— "Say not in thy heart, 
Who shall ascend into Heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down;) or, Who shall descend 
into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the Dead.) The Word is nigh thee, in thy 
mouth, and in thy heart. " That is, the Word as preached by Paul. Then follows the 
interpolation. Also, as an illustration of the statement made by Clement Alexander— that 
Paul said he would bring the Gnosis or Hidden Wisdom to the Brethren in Rome— it 
should have been shown by me that the teaching of the Epistle (ch. i. 23-32) is taken 
almost bodily and repeated nearly verbatim from ch. xiv. 12-31 of the "Wisdom of 
Solomon." 

THE KARAST=CHRIST OR MUMMY-TYPE OF IMMORTALITY. 

The Karast, which I claim to be the Egyptian original of the Greek Christ, was an image 
of rising again— a representative of the resurrection; and in speaking of this symbol I 
ought to have pointed to the fact that the alleged historic resurrection of Jesus has never 
yet been found pourtrayed on the so-called early Christian Monuments, including those 
discovered in the Roman Catacombs. But what do we find there in place of the missing 
fact? The scene of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This is depicted over and over 
again as the typical resurrection where there is no real one! Christ of Egypt reproduced in 
Rome like the other Mythical types perpetuated there by Gnostic Art. As the image is 



Egyptian, it is probable that the name is so likewise. Las (or ras) signifies to be raised up, 
and aru is another name for the Mummy-type; so that Las-aru, or Lazarus, with the 
Greek terminal, is the Egyptian symbol of resurrection called the Karast, or Christ. This 
typical and pictorial representation of the rising from the dead would become the story of 
Lazarus in the natural course of humanising the Mythos. 



A RETORT. 



I am sorry to trouble my readers with a matter so personal as the present subject. It has 
been found out that I am not infallible. Like my fellow-mortals, I can fall into error. I 
have to acknowledge and regret a stupid blunder, perceived, alas! too late (p. 15 of the 
Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ; also p. 419, Vol. II., "Natural Genesis"). 
In comparing with Egyptian certain Syro-Chaldaic and Aramean words which have been 
left untranslated in the Greek text of the New Testament, I included the word "sent, " 
entirely forgetting that it was English when I compared it with the Egyptian "shent, " a 
"pool," and "sunnt, " a healing bath. The nature of my inadvertence is proved in the very 
next lines by the remark:-- "There is no need to strain a single point for the purpose of 
making ends meet! " 

It was foolish, but such is the simple fact, and I will not seek to minimise my mistake. 
Any one engaged in attacking what he considers the supreme delusion of the European 
mind, and the crowning error of all time, ought to be free from the smallest errors 
himself. Would that it were possible! For the most is sure to be made by the enemy of the 
least lapse, more especially by those who have been consecrated to the service of 
falsification. 

My error drew the attention of a Mr. Coleman, and induced him to write an article in the 
Religio-PhilosophicalJournal of Chicago last October, of which no copy was sent to me 
by the writer or publisher. To this my attention has just been called; also to a letter by the 
same writer which appeared in the same journal, dated February 5th, headed "Opinions of 
Eminent Egyptologists regarding Mr. Massey's alleged Egypto-Christian parallels. " 
Unfortunately, the letter will necessitate a reply to the previous article. In this letter the 
Rev. A. H. Sayce is reported to say of me to Mr. Coleman, "Many thanks for your very 
thorough demolition of Mr. Massey's crudities. It is difficult to understand how a man 
can have the effrontery to put forward such a mass of ignorance and false quotation. You 
have done a real service to the cause of truth by exposing him so fully. You ask me if I 
can detect any errors in your essay. Errors enough on the part of Mr. Massey but they 
have all been exposed impartially and mercilessly by yourself. " 

Mr. Coleman continues, and quotes the following from "one of the ablest Egyptologists 
in England," who is "now connected with the British Museum," of whom he says, "owing 
to the rather personal character of some of his remarks, it is thought better that his name 
be not published." The writer says to Mr. Coleman,--" You are right in your exposure of 
Mr. Massey. Some people think him dishonest; and that he is quite conscious of the 
ridiculous blunders which he publishes. I do not think so after having examined his large 
book. It is a work which I should have thought could only have been written in Bedlam. 
No lunatic could possibly write more wild rubbish, without the least consciousness of the 
incredible ignorance displayed throughout. The man is AT ONCE an ignoramus of the 
worst kind, viz., not in the least being aware of his ignorance, and he has the pretension 
of explaining things which cannot be understood (except by trusting other persons) 
without a considerable knowledge of different languages, which he does not possess. " If 
the words here used have any real relationship to known facts, it seemed to me that the 



Egyptologist who has taken the place of the late Dr. Samuel Birch must be the writer of 
the letter quoted by Mr. Coleman. I wrote to Mr. Renouf stating my inference, and asking 
him to favour me with a denial if he were not the writer. This is Mr. Renouf s reply. The 
underlining is mine:— 

"Sir,-- You are mistaken in thinking that the extract from Mr. Coleman's letter 'points 
undoubtedly' to me. There are more persons than one at the Museum besides me, to 
whom it might be supposed to 'point.' But whatever indiscretion there may have been till 
now in this matter, I am not disposed to add to it by answering any questions as to my 
knowledge of the authorship of the letter to which you refer. —I am, Sir, your obedient 
servant, P. LE PAGE RENOUF." 

That answer I look upon as eminently unsatisfactory; and I think my view will be shared 
by others. Only one person wrote the letter; and this explanation brings at least three 
under suspicion, without identifying or absolving the right one. If Mr. Renouf be the 
writer, instead of clearing himself he has imitated the ink-fish and taken refuge in the 
cloud which he has cast around his confreres at the Museum. I cannot think the reply is 
calculated to deceive! It contains no denial, however, and perhaps the discretion shown 
too late may not prove to be the better part of valour; but I leave blank for the time being 
where I have not the absolute right to fill in a name. 

We have heard the language like this of Mr. — before (put in better English), when 
anything very upsetting has been presented to the world. Such damnation is dirt cheap! 
Also, the time has passed for denunciation to be mistaken for disproof. That is the kind of 
authority I had already counted on, and discounted, when I say, "They must find it hard to 
take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth. " 
By the by I may confess to Mr. — that I escaped from Bedlam many years ago; I would 
also remind him that the proper name for Bedlam is Bethlehem; a most ancient madhouse 
in which the patients have been confined for eighteen hundred years; and that our 
Bedlam also was once a "religious house." I am not mad myself; but I am possessed by 
the conviction that a good many other people are, and that no insanity is quite so virulent 
as that which dates from the ancient Bedlam. I had already warned my readers that they 
must expect little help from those Egyptologists and Assyriologists who are bibliolators 
first and scholars afterwards. Bibliolatry puts out the eye of scholarship or causes 
confirmed strabismus. 

I admit in the preface to my "Natural Genesis" that "as a matter of course the author will 
have blundered in manifold details. " At the end of three years I doubt whether I have! 
But of course in a work of so fundamental and pioneering a nature there will be some 
oversights, crudities and even graver faults that cannot be avoided in a first edition. Why, 
30,000 errors have had to be corrected in the latest edition of the "Word of God." And it 
does seem at times to be a providential part of the scheme of things that where the truths 
entirely fail to command attention first, the errors are sure to secure some sort of 
advertisement for the work. In this way, even a Coleman can be turned to account. 
Madness may be a matter of opinion; but whoever charges me with intended "false 
quotation" lies! 

I spared no time to get at my facts, and neglected no available sources of knowledge, 
whether directly open to myself or derivable through the minds of those who are great 
linguists. As I also say in my preface I took the precaution of consulting Dr. Samuel 
Birch for many years after he had offered, in his own words, to "keep me straight" as to 
my facts, obtainable from Egyptian records. He answered my questions, gave me his 
advice, discussed variant renderings, read whatever proofs I sent him, and corrected me 
where he saw I was wrong. I never could understand the interest he took in me and my 
work. He could have had no sympathy with my real aim and ends (which are not wholly 
proclaimed even on my title-page), yet he was always ready to enrich my poor means 
with the treasures of his knowledge, so precious for my purpose; whether by letter or in 



person, whenever I sought him out amongst the Mummies and 

"In a corner found the toys, 

Of the old Egyptian boys, " 

or got my verification direct from the monuments, including the hieroglyphic texts and 

pictures in his own copy of the Book of the Dead. 

And now for Mr. Coleman. 

He has been trying to discredit my work for over three years past. His assumption of 

superiority is immense, and might prove imposing if his methods of attack were not so 

verminously mean. His latest labour-in-vain has been to try and rear a pyramid on its 

apex—the sole point of a single fact—which can be sent toppling over with a single kick. 

Where it suits his purpose he uses an imperfect report of a Lecture so that he may convict 

me of errors which are not to be found in the Book that he seeks to discredit, and 

industriously essays to damn. 

In the article referred to he says: "In recent numbers of the London Medium and 

Daybreak there has appeared Mr. Gerald Massey's lecture on 'The HistoricalJesus and 

the Mythical Christ, ' as revised and corrected by the author, and as delivered by him in 

London not long since. In this lecture, which attempts to establish that the Jesus and the 

Disciples of the New Testament had no existence in the flesh, but were only 

personifications of Egyptian myths, we find a large number of asserted parallels between 

the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and certain portions of the Osirian and other 

myths of Egypt. " 

The opening paragraph contains two positive, provable, falsehoods. The version of my 

lecture made use of by him was a reprint from an imperfect report in the New Zealand 

"Rationalist," which was not revised by the author. If it had been he could only have 

assumed to know what he asserted without knowing. But it is not true! It is also false that 

in this lecture, or in my book, I try to "establish that Jesus and the disciples of the New 

Testament had no existence in the flesh, but were only personifications of ancient 

Egyptian myths"— whatever that may mean! 

On the contrary, I demonstrate the existence of the only possible historic Jesus known to 

Celsus, to Irenaeus, to the Jews, who allow that he had twelve disciples, whom they call 

the "twelve god ess runagates. " 

What I do also demonstrate is that the mythical twelve were the followers of Har-Khuti in 

Egypt ages earlier. 

This is a prime specimen of his mode of working, and one it is well to keep in mind all 

along. This is the mode of demolition which Professor Sayce endorses, warrants, 

glorifies; and Mr. — declares to be "quite right." 

Again, I have used the Hebrew word , vlw (Natural Genesis ii. 419), on which our learned 

Hebraist remarks, "This asserted Hebrew word Shiloam is a fabrication. There is no such 

Hebrew word in existence as Shiloam— in unpointed Hebrew Sh, L, O, M"\ ! "To identify 

Salem, or Shalem, with Siloam in Hebrew, the letter 'm' was required. There being no 'm' 

in the correct word, Shiloach, Mr. Massey manufactured a Hebrew word and printed it in 

Hebrew letters, as if to deceive the very elect. " 

Now, look at that for a lie! with no room left for the least little wriggle out of it! 

As Mr. Coleman obviously knows nothing of Hebrew beyond the names of letters, 

perhaps Mr. Sayce, or Mr. — will look it out for him in Fuerst, at page 1388, Col. 2, 

where the word appears with the meaning of "well" in health; and on page 1376, Col. 1, 

where it means Peace. It is used for the Prince of peace (Is. ix. 6). And Fuerst further says 

"Shiloah is cognate with , vlw (Shlom). It is quite impossible that Mr. Sayce should not 

have known this at the time he gave his sanction to Mr. Coleman's falsehoods and 

consummate effrontery; and it was cruel not to arrest him as he was careering round in 

this wild way instead of tickling the poor creature's vanity with insincere applause. 

The lie and libel were so unnecessary that I am compelled to regret the wanton waste of 



pure malignity. When I say the "Pool of Peace" is Salem, or Shloam in Hebrew, I do not 
say that it is the Pool of Siloam; and am only rendering the word "Peace." And as Shloam 
means "peace" and salem means peace, I used the alternative of "salem or shloam." I 
knew the two words were spelt differently, and that Shloam may be pointed Shaloam; I 
also knew that they were identical in meaning. Moreover, the Pool of the waters that flow 
softly is a form of the Pool of peace. Not that either of these was involved or at all 
necessary to my argument. When I say "THE Pool of Peace" is in Hebrew Salem or 
Shloam, I am speaking of THE mythical pool which in Egyptian is the Pool of Hept or 
Peace, not the topographical pool of Siloam. I was only concerned with the identity of 
THE mythical original which had various localisations in different lands, Judea included. 
Mr. Coleman runs a long rigmarole about the goddess "Nu" and the place "Annu, " in 
which he flounders in the bottomless bog of his own helpless ignorance, past all pulling 
out by those who have taken him by the hand—viz., Messrs. Sayce and — . 
He who enters this domain so unprepared and unequipped as Mr. Coleman, must be a 
fore-damned fool. I could have pitied his impotency but for his ineffable conceit and 
aggressive insolence. 

Because I use the words "An" and "Annu" as synonyms, this great Egyptologist asserts 
that I identify the Lady of "An" with the goddess "Nu" to form the word Annu. As the 
monkey exclaimed when he saw the elephant taking in water at such a rate, "To drink 
with the tail is immense!" An andAnnu are simply Egyptian variants of one word; 
different spellings of the same word were the result of familiarity with matters upon 
which my corrector is so utterly ignorant that he looks upon and denounces the variants 
in Egyptian spelling as my distortion of Egyptian names, and sapiently suggests that 
"there always appears to be an object" in my changes! He thinks the "Lady with the long 
hair" is Tefnut, and not the goddess Nu as I had inferred, partly because the Ritual says 
"The hair of the Osiris is in the shape of that ofNu" (Ch. xlii.), and partly because the 
Osiris ascends the heaven, or Nu, with his long hair down to his shoulders. Either way it 
matters very little. 

What I do regret is that I could not have had the advantage of knowing what Mr. 
Coleman thinks about Egyptian mythology before writing my book. The opinion of such 
an expert on the most profoundly allusive and problematical Sayings might have 
seriously modified the result. He further charges me with having got certain goddesses 
mixed up; it being his mission to teach me how to separate them once more and 
distinguish between them individually. Here he tries to turn his ignorance to account by 
taking advantage of the reader's and producing the impression that the ignorance is mine. 
He throws dust in the eyes of others and then says it was I who did it. And Mr. Sayce, in 
a cloud of it, swears it to me! 

I may admit that this parallel of the Woman at the Well, which is but one out of fifty, is 
the weakest one. But it is enough for my purpose to show that the Osiris or Osirified 
(these being identical in character) appears at the Well or Pool of Peace; that he claims to 
be the Well and personates the Water; that the source of this water of life given to the Son 
is the Father; that a well or flow of this water comes out of Osiris to him; that the well of 
this water comes through him (Cf. John vii. 38, and iv. 14.); that he washes in the "pool 
of Peace, " where the Osirified are made pure or healed: where the "certain times, " as I 
have called them (because the seasons for healing are dual in the Ritual) are detailed 
thus— "77ze Gods of the pure waters are there on the fourth hour of the night and the 
eighth hour of the day, " saying, "pass away hence" to him who has been cured or healed. 
Here it is noticeable that in the still-continued process of eliminating that which looks too 
mythical, this passage containing the angel descending to trouble the waters and turn 
them into a Pool of healing has been dropped from the latest revised version of John's 
Gospel. 
In converting the original mythos into later history, this process of picking the owner's 



name or sign from stolen goods has gone on from the first, and is not yet ended! 
I do not say or suppose anything so simple as that the writer of John's Gospel was 
copying from some "variant and obscure chapter in an ancient Egyptian papyrus. " That 
is Mr. Coleman's foolish way of putting it. That was not exactly the way in which the 
Osirian legend got literalized in Rome. If it had been preserved and continued as mythos, 
it could not have re-appeared under the guise of historic Christianity. 
The matter had to be manipulated, converted, assimilated, in which process the original 
features have been somewhat defaced. This has to be allowed for in judging of my 
parallels, comparisons, and interpretations. 

There must of necessity be a wide gulf between any one who accepts the Gospel history 
as pure matter of fact, and one who treats it as mainly mythical. The two can only talk to 
different classes of minds separated for the time being by that gulf, across which they can 
hardly hear each other speak. 

But perhaps the most perfect of all my critic's manifold errors and monstrous blunders is 
this. 

He writes a long essay in six columns to defend a passage in the Johannine Gospel 
against my mythical interpretation, with the intention of demonstrating the "stupendous 
display of ignorance and absurdity" which he finds in my volumes. He fights tooth and 
nail on behalf of the historical interpretation against the mythical. His one line of 
argument, his raison d'etre all through, is that the events under review, the woman at the 
well, the Christ who drinks there, and other circumstances, are historical! And yet in the 
opening paragraph of his article he had started with saying— '7^ is significant that most of 
these so called New Testament parallels are derived from the fourth Gospel, popularly 
ascribed to John. Every competent biblicist knows that the account of Jesus and his 
teachings given in John's Gospel differs widely from those given in the first three 
Gospels; and there is no reasonable doubt, in the light ofhistorico-critical biblical 
science, that, while large portions of the latter are genuinely historical, the Gospel of 
John, as a whole, is UNHISTORICAL, MYTHICAL." 

Good God! the man is here throwing away the child with the water it was washed in! If 
this be so, and, as I demonstrate, the mythical gospel was first, no matter how late it 
appeared in the canonical gospel ascribed to John, the supposed history of the Synoptics 
goes to the ground! Where is the sanity in supposing that the Mythical matter of John's 
Gospel is the result of tattooing Egyptian fables all over the face of historic fact (as 
previously pourtrayed by the Synoptics), and disfiguring the human features past all 
recognition? The Christ of John is indefinitely divine, and that is first: the, final phase 
looks definitely historic. That is how the Mythology was humanised. The Myth-Makers 
were Fabulists, but not the forgers of facts; the forgers are they who converted the fable 
into historic fact. Mr. Coleman says only just what I say and show on behalf of the 
Mythos. But what then was the sense, or where was the sanity in labouring to prove it to 
be historic bit by bit, when, as a whole, it is entirely unhistorical and mythical? 
Yet Messrs. Sayce and — assure Mr. Coleman, with their compliments, that he is right. 
I fancy some of my readers will suspect that he is not- quite. 

And this is what it is to be demolished! This is doing a "real service to the cause of 
truth. " So says the Rev. Mr. Sayce, and he is an authority. 

Mr. Coleman charges me with limiting my quotations from the Egyptian Ritual to Dr. 
Birch's version of the "very corrupt Turin Text, " as if he were an authority respecting the 
Texts!— and then of misquoting the Texts to establish my parallel. Whereas my slight 
departures from the Text (in Bunsen) are the result of various emendations or corrections 
made by the Egyptologists, such as Renouf, including Dr. Birch himself, to whom I took 
them for his final opinion, and with whom I have gone over Text after Text for that 
purpose. I neglected no available source of knowledge, early or late. Also in regarding, 
condensing, and connecting certain passages, I wrote with the whole matter of the 



Mythos in mind, and had the Ritual well-nigh by heart; which is to be at an enormous 

disadvantage when judged by Mr. Coleman. 

In denouncing the "corrupt Turin Text" he is merely "monkeying round," by quoting the 

words of Mr. Renouf (Hibbert Lectures, p. 177). He consistently omits the rest of the 

sentence. Mr. Renouf, like M. Naville, is an expert in Textual and Verbal Criticism, and 

it is he who says on the same page:— 

"Dr. Birch's translation, though made about thirty years ago, before some of the most 

important discoveries of the full meaning of words, may still be considered extremely 

exact as a rendering of the corrupt Turin text; and to an Englishman gives nearly as 

correct an impression of the original as the text itself would do to an Egyptian who had 

not been carefully taught the mysteries of his religion. " 

Mr. Coleman's method, however, is the correct one for a defender of the Great 

Superstition to adopt; and if he were obsessed by the spirit of some fanatical Spanish 

monk, one of those who urged on the Mexican massacres, dead and damned ages since 

for his bigotry and cruelty, and re-incarnated to continue the old battle against Truth, he 

could not have more cleverly struck the track of the Jesuit. It is what the Christians in all 

ages have done to get rid of, discredit, and mystify, the pre-Christian evidences of the 

mythical origins; only he lacks the requisite knowledge for doing the work. 

Nor is this a matter of mere Textual interpretation; and I am calmly confident that no 

mere verbal changes will invalidate the fundamental facts, the true doctrines, the 

identifiable mythology, found in the versions of Birch, Lepsius, and Naville. 

On the contrary, the closer the inspection made by men of insight the more will my 

interpretation of the vastest number of facts ever yet collected and collated be 

corroborated. 

Mr. Coleman has been soliciting certificates. I will give him one written on a label bound 

to last and stick like pitch-plaster. It is my recognition of his claims to be 

THE GENUINE GNOSTIC. 

He calls to Europe, high and low, 

And all the Americas, — 

"That is the man who does not know; 

I am the man who does"] 

The others join in Chorus; Oh! 

They make his brain-bee buzz! 

"You are right, dear friend! He does not know; 

You are the man who does"! 

From personal knowledge of him, and the imposture of his pretensions, I know him to be 
incompetent to discuss matters of Egyptology. He is not an authority in any department 
of literature, and has not a soul beyond the making of fly-dirts on the window to obstruct 
the light,~or of violating the privacy of letters so foolishly entrusted to him. 
In setting himself up as a critic and corrector, mentor and censor, advocate, judge and 
jury, all in one, he has greatly mistaken his vocation. If he must pose as a man of letters 
and a symbolist, he should have been a printer's reader, allowed once a week to carry a 
typical banner at the tail of a Lyceum procession on Sundays. He may pass for one of the 
learned amongst those who know no better; in the realm of the blind the one-eyed man is 
a king. He shows some cleverness in writing about what he does not understand, where 
he is not likely to be brought to book. But he is no more capable of judging, or qualified 
to give a verdict, in a matter like this, than the weevil that worms its way through one of 
Turner's canvasses is fitted to pass an opinion on the picture. 
He has an irritating itch for recognition, or notoriety, but has shown no sign of 
possessing, or being possessed by, the genuine passion for truth. Like an incipient 



Herostratus or Guiteau— the fellow who culminated as a fool gone insane with vanity—he 

would do anything to be talked about, or written to—even commit Massey-cre— if he were 

only able.* 

Never did any writer known to me put forth such strenuous or futile efforts to lift himself 

up by his own shirt-collar and add a cubit to his stature in the eyes of the lookers on. 

From the beginning to the end of his attempts, his aim and object, the total drift of all his 

deprecation, is to belittle my work, and make himself look large to his readers through a 

mist of his own making. A chief part of his criticism consists in proclaiming that he does 

not see! I never said he did, or could. Nelson at Copenhagen put up the glass to his one 

blind eye and could not perceive the signal flying. Mr. Coleman often puts his glass to 

two, with the same result of not seeing. 

I have had to congratulate him on writing to me to set him right on the subject of 

astronomy, before he put his foot into it on a matter most fundamentally important to my 

subject; the ignorance shown by his questions being astounding. 

With all his native impudence he has asserted (in the Religio-philosophical Journal), that 

the name of Jesus Christ was unknown until the middle of the first century AD. (cf. the 

second book of Esdras— a pre-Christian book of the Secret Wisdom.) 

In the same journal he classed Baring Gould as being on my side, in opposition to all 

other writers on the subject of Jehoshua Ben Pandira, and entirely overlooked the fact 

that although Baring Gould used the same Talmudic material as myself, his conclusions 

were totally antipodal to mine; and that he remains as orthodox to-day as were his 

conclusions then. 

And now Mr. Coleman may pass with his certificates. 

There is an American story of a dog who ran after a wolf, fast and furious at first, but 

before the race was over, the dog was seen to be flying still faster— a "leetle bit in front of 

the wolf!" 

Mr. Coleman is not an authority, and has no reputation to lose. But his private backers 

have; and they have committed the unpardonable sin against scholarship of endorsing and 

justifying false statements made against me by Mr. Coleman, without taking the trouble 

to test the truth of his assertions or to verify the alleged facts for themselves. They were 

so ready to make a mountain of an underhand, underground worker's little molehill; they 

were so eager to have me knifed, that they have warranted a blade which was 

treacherously limp and leaden! 

Mr. Sayce marvels at my effrontery in making assertions, some of which Mr. Coleman 

has so falsely put into my mouth; and then charges me with 



* A literary correspondent writes of this Sahur.—"! know little about Egyptology, but I do know that the 
fellow deserves a— well, a 'serendible good drubbing' for his insolence to you. Should you reply, please give 
him a kick from me, if only in a/oo/-note." 

"false quotation"; and he calls Mr. Coleman's puerile performance a "very thorough 
demolition, " and a "real service to the cause of truth. " He rejoices over what he terms an 
impartial and merciless exposure. 

To my thinking the Professor is rather Uriah-Heepishly thankful for exceedingly small 
mercies, and says grace to a miserable meal. 

Mr. — vouches for the fact that his correspondent is "quite right;" and it appears that 
neither of them knows better, or else their vision was overclouded with the bile of a bitter 
bigotry. Either way, I warn my American friends that Mr. — has made use of the official 
stamp (the Hall-mark, so to say,) of the British Museum, to pass off spurious wares upon 
unsuspecting people in the United States! and I fancy that, for all lovers of truth, justice, 
and fair play, I have so far demonstrated the congenital incompetence of my critics to sit 
in judgment on my work. 



It really makes one ashamed of scholarship to think of two reputed great scholars backing 
by taking shelter behind a pretender to knowledge like Mr. Coleman to discredit me and 
condemn my work instead of handling the matter for themselves. 
My publishers tell me they sent a copy of the "Natural Genesis" to Mr. Sayce over three 
years ago. I have not heard that he attempted to expose my mass of ignorance and false 
quotation, dispute my facts, refute my interpretation, or controvert my conclusions. True, 
he is not an Egyptologist nor a master of mythology. But that is no excuse nor 
justification for the conduct which I resent. It only serves as cause for all the severer 
condemnation. Of course in writing a letter he might have claimed privacy for his 
opinions, but cannot plead that privilege now the letter is made public. 
The other writer, whom I hold to be Mr. Renouf (pro. tern.), is a professed Egyptologist, a 
good grammarian, an expert in textual criticism. I am a devoted student of his writings in 
common with those of other Egyptologists. But I never could think highly of his insight 
or range of vision. To a mind like his, in a case like mine, the profoundest 
acquaintanceship with the largest mass of facts—the widest and truest generalisation 
based on the facts, or the subtlest interpretation of them, will only look like a departure 
away from and a going beyond the facts as limited for him. 
I have dived deeply, and he fails to see 
The ocean hath its due profundity. 

You may transcribe texts and decipher inscriptions, but with the light shut out all round 
by non-application of the comparative method, and from lack of illumination within, you 
cannot touch the Egyptian origins in mythology or language, time or space, or interpret 
the mystery of Egypt to her own forgetful self. 

Every day discoveries are proving how limited has been the outlook, how nonevolutionary 
and untrue the interpretation of Egyptologists concerning the past of that 
people; and the latest discoveries made have swept away many of the mental landmarks, 
and effaced the limits of Egyptologists like Mr. Renouf, who have only just blazed the 
veriest surface of the subject. But I claim that every fresh fact made known of late years 
is in favour of my interpretation. In England they have been too long the victims of the 
Hebrew and Indo-Germanic delusions respecting the beginnings. 
Mr. Renouf has declared (Hibbert Lectures, p. 243) that "neither Hebrews nor Greeks 
borrowed any of their ideas from Egypt" (see Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch, Diodorus 
Siculus, and others). He thinks the "mythological symbolism" of Egypt arose from 
"varieties of metaphorical language" which "reacted upon thought" and "obtained the 
mastery" (lb. p. 237). Following Max Miiller he says, "Mythology, we know, is the 
disease which springs up at a peculiar stage of human culture" (lb. p. 251). Nonsense. 
'Tis but a dream of the metaphysical theorist to suppose that mythology is a Disease of 
language, or anything else except his own brain. Mythology was a primitive mode of 
thinging the early thought; the beginnings of its sign-language being earlier than words. It 
remains the repository of man's most ancient science; and, truly interpreted once more, it 
is destined to be the death of all those false theologies to which it has unwittingly given 
birth. 

He has said (lb. p. 177) it is perhaps hopeless to expect that the Egyptian legends alluded 
to in the "Book of the Dead" will be recovered. My claim is to have recovered them, by 
application of the comparative process to a world-wide range of mythology; and it will be 
easier to denounce the audacity as lunatic than to disprove the right to make that claim. I 
do not pretend and I do explain. He is one of those critics who suspect error in what they 
do not understand— e.g. the Father-God Seb in one phase of character is the Earth. But 
when Seb is called the Mother, Mr. Renouf suspects an error in the text. It is only the 
mother who can bring forth. Hence we find the back of Seb opens to bring forth. 
In his off-hand way of damning by denunciation an old friend of mine, Mr. McLennan 
(whose name Mr. Renouf mis-spells twice over, once as McLellan in the text (p. 30), and 



once as McLennon in the index), he asserts that the "representations" made in the zodiac 
of Denderah were "not anterior to the Christian era, or Roman domination; they were 
borrowed from the Greeks, and were entirely unknown to the Egyptians. " (lb. p. 30.) 
Whereas the inscription found at Denderah states that the Temple had been restored in 
accordance with apian discovered in the writings ofKufu; whilst the chief celestial types 
pour tray ed all over the planisphere prove themselves to be solely Egyptian! When I 
pointed out this passage to Dr. Birch, he said, "Certainly; the types in the planisphere are 
not Greek Renouf should have done as the artists did who gave the Greek on one side, 
the Egyptian on the other. " 

All that he was warranted in saying is that the mythological types, Typhon, Sut, Isis, 
Horus, Seb, Shu-and-Tefnut, and the rest of those that never were Greek, have been 
reproduced at a later period by Greco-Egyptian artists, with a few modernisations. If he 
intended to distinguish between the Zodiacal and extra-Zodiacal signs of the planisphere, 
he should have said so. But of the twelve signs the Virgin is Isis, and the Sagittarius is 
composed of Shu and Tefnut. He must have known, however, that when Depuis and 
McLennan spoke of the Zodiac of Denderah as being ancient, they meant the 
planisphere, and were not distinguishing the one set of signs from the other. 
Rays of light from the newest dawn would bring no quickening influence to such as are 
mentally bound and doomed till death to remain the representatives of an expiring system 
of thought. 

The resurrection of Egypt has brought forth a Spectre that will frighten Historic 
Christianity to death; or haunt the minds of men till they lose their unworthy fears and 
listen like truth-lovers to the message which she brings to them from the Grave. 
What says Professor Mahaffy, after getting a glimpse of the ghost, and finding that the 
dead language has come to life again? He admits that "every great and fruitful idea, " 
"theological conception, " religious and moral doctrine, now called Christian, were also 
Egyptian. But, he says, "I recoil from opening this great subject now; it is enough to have 
lifted the veil and shown the scene of many a future conflict. " 

I have not recoiled. The odium of opening this great subject now is mine. I am selected 
for the honour of receiving, not the civic wreath for crown of reward, but the first blows 
of the bludgeon on the head from those who raise the howl of insanity. 
"You will win at last, " said Captain Burton, "but 'at last' generally comes too late!" Well, 
I don't know. The train I ride in travels with increasing speed. 

For the present I have to ask my indiscriminating assailant to assume that responsibility 
to which he is committed by Mr. Coleman and produce the evidence for his accusations. 
He says he has examined my work; now let him cross-examine me. I am scarcely mad or 
Quixotic enough to think he will, but should he do so, I will undertake the printing of his 
exposure to the extent of fifty pages, the size of the present pamphlet. 
I mean business. 

I court honest criticism, and welcome genuine correction. I do not mind being 
misunderstood, but do resent misrepresentation. I am in search of realities myself, and 
have no tolerance for men or things in masks. I try to follow Truth, like the old 
Egyptians, my masters, with all the force of sincerity, all the fervour of faith. That is 
comparatively easy now-a-days when bon-fires are no longer made of man or book, and 
the penalties are so very slight. A loaf or two of bread the less; a greeting here or there 
with an offensive epithet, a rotten egg, or a dead cat, are things to be smiled at when we 
remember our fore-runners that were her lovers from old, who beat out a pathway for us 
through all the long dark night of the past, and lit it with illimitable rows of their burning 
bodies, each turned into a flaming Torch for Truth. 
GERALD MASSEY. 



A correspondent writes:--"! am reading this extraordinary 'Seven Souls' lecture, and have 



been able to follow you as far as the following statement, whereat I stick. I am compelled 
to trouble you for an explanation. You say: 'The Roman Ccesar, the hairy, pubescent, or 
anointed one, was an impersonation of this supreme soul; he happens to be the eighth by 
name in Octavianus!' This looks like converting history into typology. Whatever the root 
significance of the term 'Ccesar' may be, was it not the historical Julius Caesar who really 
made, i.e., signalised it, by his deeds? —the name subsequently becoming a 
complimentary title assumed by the Emperors who were supposed, each in turn, to reflect 
the lustre of the Great Julius?" 

No. But this may serve as a useful illustration of the historical versus the mythical view 
of the Christ. I fear, however, that it is a failing of mine to make too many passing 
allusions, and use too few words where explanations may be most needed. I mean the 
Caesar (of whom, in the case of Julius, the Roman legends related that he was born with 
very long hair; like the long-haired Horus, or the long-haired Christ), had a mythical 
origin, and bore a title that was typical. Historical rulers were invested with divinity in 
this way, and made into mundane representatives of the Gods. It has been my work to 
trace such origins on various lines of research. For these mythical origins are manifold; 
they can only be distinguished and determined by knowing their Genesis in natural 
phenomena. In the present instance, I suggest or claim that the Caesar as well as the Ra, 
the Repa, the Buddha, or the Christ, was a titular representative of the eighth, the total 
and eternal soul—mythically the re-born Sun; mystically the re-born Spirit or glorified 
Ghost of Man. 



THE "NATURAL GENESIS" AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 

Many enquirers have asked me why the "Natural Genesis" is not in the British Museum? 
This question I could not understand, but a friend has verified for me the reading-room. 
Doubtless it is to be got at some other way known only to the initiated, but these wouldbe 
readers during three years past were simple enough to suppose that the Second Part of 
one and the same work would be entered along with the First Part, it having been 
published in 1883. 



THE COMING RELIGION. 

Our "friends the enemy" cheerily assure us that certain things are settled once for all in 
favour of Historical Christianity, and any further kicking against the fact is all in vain. If 
you show them that the Mosaic Writings do not contain an original revelation to 
mankind, but are a Mosaic of Persian and Egyptian mythology, that the foundations of 
their creed are destroyed if the Fall of Man is a fable, they will tell you that does not in 
the least invalidate the authority of the Bible, nor imperil the Christian revelation. Oh, no! 
The Church has never committed itself to any particular interpretation. Let us throw up 
the sponge and continue the battle. Some of the Apologists (as they call themselves, 
without meaning it ironically) pretend to think they are so secure that they can denounce 
any discussion of the Mosaic legends as intolerably tiresome. They affect to consider the 
matter past discussion. But those same "certain things" were never more uncertain or 
unsettled than at the present time; and when they do get settled the occupation of those 
who preach them as God's truth to-day will be gone forever! If they have closed the 
controversy, we have just begun to open it! We have not done with the note of 
interrogation yet. If they have made and tied up their little bundle of old dried sticks, ours 
are beginning to grow, and put forth a new leaf; ours are yet green and lusty with the sap 
of a new life. 



These people have a vision of their own, and as it was bequeathed to them they will not 
part with it, even though they have to close their eyes to see! They will die in the "good 
old faith." But that is what others of us cannot do. We have but just begun to ascertain the 
meaning of the good old facts that preceded the good old faith. We are finding out that 
names the most hallowed are spurious counterfeits of the ancient gods. We are learning 
that the literary fortunes of the Bible were made by Mythology, and filched from the 
peoples who have been spoiled as Pagans, and accursed as the spawn of Satan. There is a 
spirit within us that wants to see, with our eyes wide open, and will see, and must tear the 
bandages and blinkers off the eyes to see, each for himself, whether the traditional vision 
be false or true. Nature gave us eyes to see with; it was men who added the blinkers. 
Nature intended us to be led by our own eyes; it was men who substituted the system of 
leading by the nose the mass of dough-faced humanity which church and state have tried 
so hard and so long to knuckle and mould for the purpose of leading it by the nose. We 
have found out now-a-days that even the horses pull better without than with the use of 
blinkers. So ignorant are many of these men of what is being thought outside their own 
little world, they do not even know how the battle is going against them. They are in 
possession of a few crumbling out-works, and do not appear to understand that the enemy 
is already in the heart of the citadel itself, with the sappers and miners depositing their 
mental dynamite; nor care greatly, so long as the commissariat remains intact, and they 
can draw the usual rations! for their attitude is, "deprive us of what you please 
doctrinally, and resolve all our mysteries into myth, so long as you do not disestablish 
and disendow the Church! " So long as the out- works are standing with them inside they 
will not recognise defeat! And orthodox Christianity is mainly built up of out-works or 
scaffolding. It is not the scaffolding, however, with which the institution was built, but 
one that conceals the true nature of the real building inside. The ordinary worshipper 
stands outside and mistakes the scaffolding for the real building, and looks upon it as it 
rises tier above tier like so many landing-stages and resting-places on the upward way to 
heaven. It has been my aim to penetrate beyond this scaffolding, discover the secrets of 
the hiding-place, and contradict the false report concerning the builders. And what we do 
find is that the so-called "Revealed Religion" is simply unrevealed mythology, and that a 
spurious system of salvation was proffered to those who would accept the ancient 
mythology transmogrified into Historic Christianity, and be bribed into changing their old 
lamps for new ones! Orthodox preachers will go on asserting Sunday after Sunday, in the 
name of God, any number of things which their hearers do not believe, only they have 
heard them repeated so often—past all power of impinging or impugning—until the sense 
is too out-wearied to rebel; things which they themselves do not believe, if they could 
once afford to question their own souls. The Pall Mall Gazette has lately asked the 
question, if you had £100,000 to spare what do you think would be the greatest charity to 
give it to? I should like to have replied, "Pension off a few of those poor slaves of the 
pulpit, who are forced to earn their living by preaching what they no longer believe." 
How little the orthodox world dreams of the new dawn that is rolling up the sky, glorious 
with its promise of the brighter, better day! Nay, it is already flaming through the cobwebbed 
windows, and trying to look in at the shut eyes of the sleepers, which are fast 
closed, or blinking at the splendour shining on their faces! They are still dreaming how to 
roll the world back the other way once more into the night of the past, even while they 
are passing, face upwards, beneath the radiant arch over their heads, alight with the dawn 
of a day that is not theirs; blind to the glory of its coming, deaf to the birds that soar and 
prophesy in song, senseless to an amazing apparition of the Eternal growing visibly 
present in this our world of time! Now and again the sleepers start, and you hear a 
troubled moan from those that dream, and know they dream, but are afraid to wake. And 
when they do wake they will begin shouting for the fire-engines to come and put out the 
flame of dawn, now reddening the sky as with a conflagration and the end of all things 



for them. 

If these men had truly cared for religion instead of their Anthropomorphic theology, they 
would not have gnashed their teeth and shaken the fist at the alleged phenomena of 
modern Spiritualism, as they have done. They would have embraced Spiritualism as if it 
had held out to them the strong right hand of salvation itself. For just when scientific 
research is undermining and exploding the ancient beliefs that have been falsely founded 
on mythology—just when the Materialists think they have discovered the great secret of 
life in protoplasm, and we are on the verge of finding the mechanical equivalent for 
consciousness—just when some are assuming that force comes from the visible side of 
phenomena, that mind is but a property of matter, an effect rather than a cause, and 
thought is nothing more than a result of molecular motion— just when the scientific report 
is that the deeper we dive physically, the farther off recedes the heart-beat of eternal life, 
in breaks this revelation from a world unknown, and, as it was assumed, unknowable. 
And these alleged phenomena contain the sole possible, palpable, natural evidence of a 
future life, that men have, or ever did have, or ever can have, to go upon. But no! what 
they care for are the old wives' fables and the figments which have become their 
hereditary stock in trade; the facts may go to the devil, to whom, indeed, they generally 
consign them. For, if it be God himself who tries to speak with them in this way from 
behind the mask of matter to prove the fact, they say it cannot be our God. He is dead, 
and buried in a book. This must be the devil. It is the devil. They had succeeded in 
substituting the non-natural for the natural, making men believe that this sham was the 
supernatural. They have taught us to look for God in the wrong way. They have based 
religion on erroneous grounds. They have made us the victims of false beliefs, and a false 
belief will make despicable cowards of men who would otherwise have looked facts in 
the face, and been true to themselves and honest to others. They have evolved our respect 
and reverence by means of the whip. And now when the stick and scourge, the knout and 
whip, have lost their terrors, have done their worst, and had their day, it is found that 
religious reverence has vanished also, and the young are becoming utterly sceptical in 
most things, before they are old enough to be in earnest about anything; for which the 
false teaching is responsible. The young have been disgusted with the ancient object of 
reverence, the grim and gory ghost of an anthropomorphic God. 

We are constantly hearing complaints respecting the want of reverence on the part of the 
young for the old. But if they are old fools, and "old women" of the wrong sex, why 
should they be reverenced? It is said the children of this generation have no reverence for 
God or man. But if the reverence was evoked by the stick, and the reign of the stick is 
over, what are you going to do? It is of no use complaining, and probably it is too late to 
think of getting a new stick. 

Before condemning, however, let us look a little deeper. Why should we expect reverence 
for such a God as we have allowed to be set before the children? Such a God as that of 
the Hebrews, who cursed all mankind because one of them, and the first one, ate an 
apple: a God for whom David was a man after his own heart; a God who revealed himself 
to Moses a posteriori. Reverence for such a deity used to be inspired by hell-fire; and 
now the fires of hell are going out— in fact, as Horace Greeley said, there are not half the 
people damned now-a-days that ought to be, only we want these to be the proper sort. 
What right, what reason have we to expect intellectual reverence for the parents 
themselves, who pretend to believe and permit such teachings as have been imposed on 
their children? They are most likely to be looked upon as old fogies, hypocrites, and fools 
by the younger generation, as it rises up to sit in judgment on them. Reverence must 
ultimately depend on the object presented for reverence. The first necessity is that it shall 
be a reality and not a sham, not a swindle, not an imposition to be found out, whether as a 
father in heaven, a father in the Church, or a father in the family. Possibly the pious 
pretences and the pious pretenders are being found out by the younger generation. But, 



the veriest larrikin has no lack of respect for the cricketer Grace, the sculler Beach, or the 
fighter Gordon, because these, in their way and range, are living realities. And if you 
want to have filial respect or religious reverence, the object must be a living reality that is 
worthy of it! Neither men, nor women, nor children will much longer bow down to false 
authority, or believe blindly as they have done hitherto perforce. 
The world is waking from its phantom dreams, 
To make out that which is from that which seems. 

People now demand the verification of all that is taught as true. They must see for 
themselves that which is set forth as the truth. They must touch it and test it to learn 
whether it has the ring of reality. The demand of the present is that that which is asserted 
by the teacher shall be verifiable by the learner in every domain of thought, all the range 
of nature—all that exists, being ready to supply the means of practical experiment for 
attaining the sure foothold of a scientific basis. It is true that we are still compelled to 
battle vigorously, and spend life freely in fighting against the shadows and phantoms of 
to-day that are thinning out, and will be seen through to-morrow—compelled to fight them 
and to expose their false pretensions, because so many still mistake them for solid 
realities. But the people, men and women, aye and little children, will ere long arise and 
say to these our purblind spiritual teachers— 

Begone, you foolish preachers! 
Howlers, snufflers, screechers! 
You miserable teachers! 
You God-of-blood beseechers 
You forgers of God's features! 
Who make us the devil's creatures; 
Shut up, you foolish preachers! 
Get out, you hell-fire screechers, 
Go home, you played-out preachers! 

and the cry will come in sterner tones,— let the war-drums of the workers roll out with 
their battle-thunders now, and drown the gabble of all this foolish, fruitless war of words. 
Eighteen centuries since the religion of faith, the "good old faith," began to take the place 
of knowledge. Its history is one long and gory record of the battles of Belief versus 
Knowledge, of Faith at war with Facts. What is there that men have not found compatible 
with faith that was all the while at war with facts? Have they not cut each other's throats, 
believing it to be for the glory of God? Have they not burned bodies by the thousand, 
believing it to be the sure way of saving souls from hell-fire? Have they not made the 
Cross into the hilt of the sword to give them the better grip-hold of it whilst slaughtering 
myriads for the faith? Men have believed that they should find God if they un-sexed 
themselves, and got sufficiently removed from humanity, and so have gone out as hermits 
into the wilderness of monkery— which was like going into pitch darkness on purpose to 
see your face in a looking-glass! Men have believed that their God was the natural author 
of the diseases and evils which they created and fostered for ages, or permitted, and are 
responsible for before God and man to-day. They have believed that in the field of human 
souls Satan was the great harvester, and God only the gleaner. 

Do but think what Woman has suffered from the belief,— the foul and foolish calumny,— 
that she was the cause of the fall of the human race! She ought never to forgive it. She 
ought to wake up and work, and sleep no more, until that lying libel is dead and damned, 
and the whole system of false teaching to which it belongs is swept out of the world for 
ever. 

Men have believed in a God who was an omnipotent fiend, and demon quite unknown to 
the devil-worship of the past— a curse that sat enthroned amid the universe, breathing 



horror all abroad, and brooding down in blackness on the souls of men. And the 
ascending smoke of torment was to magnify the features of his monstrous majesty. And if 
you were one of the chosen, elected to a front seat in the kingdom of this dreadful God, 
the daintiest part of your enjoyment was to be a full and perfect view of the poor tortured 
souls, including those of your own wee babes, a span long—the mites and midgets of hell. 
The inspired Mr. Spurgeon will tell you what a delectable entertainment you may expect, 
for he says,--' All their veins are roads for the feet of pain to travel on, and every nerve is 
a string on which the devil shall for ever play his diabolical tune of hell's unutterable 
lament!" Then, as the song of the ransomed was being sung, word would come that your 
father was among the damned, and you would sing all the louder,— or that several of your 
little ones were in hell, and your hallelujahs would be redoubled. And orthodox hearts 
have been warmed and hands exultingly rubbed over these pictures in the fire, which 
have been enjoyed with an infernal relish. 

Moody, the ranter, tells a story of his God. A poor, foolish, fond mother, in Illinois, had a 
little child that was sick and ailing unto death. When thinking it was dying, she could not 
bring her rebellious mind to say "Thy will be done!" she called on God to spare her babe, 
she cried to him,— "Oh! God! I cannot give up my little one." And the Lord heard her 
prayer, and answered it too! He snatched the child from death, and gave it back to her— 
turned into an idiot for life! That was a smart specimen of the divine derision that is 
promised in the Bible,— "The Lord shall have ye in derision! " He had her there. 
Such was the "good old faith!" Under such a creed the fathers were rendered unfit to 
beget a race of free and fearless men. Under such a creed the mother's womb has been 
turned into a prison-house of fear and trembling for the embryo that was wrapped and 
swathed in a pall of gloom before it was born, and the divine spark of soul almost 
extinguished by the maternal deposit of Calvinistic cloud! 

The Christian scheme, if true, could only lead to eternal wretchedness all round, torments 
in heaven far worse than all the miseries of hell. Who could be selfishly happy in heaven 
with a knowledge of everlasting hell? A Hindu commentator on this creed remarks:— 
"One of their teachers said to me lately that all my people, about 800,000,000 every fifty 
years, must assuredly go to hell; and at the same time placed before me a picture of their 
heaven, asking me to 'flee from the wrath to come! 1 and escape the horrible vindictiveness 
of their 'God of Love!'" The profoundest appeal made by the Christian creed has ever 
been made to fear. The bogies of the human childhood have been continued by it and 
applied to prevent our growing up into women and men. Fear of eating of the Tree of 
Knowledge. Fear of hell-fire, or the flames of earthly martyrdom. It is fear still even 
when it has dwindled down to fear of Mrs. Grundy! From first to last the appeal has 
always been to fear. Whereas all the fear in the world could never get from human beings 
any more than the affection of a dog that licks the hand of its tyrant at feeding time, when 
there is no whip to be seen! Religion, for ages, has been a reign of terror, under the 
oppression of which it was impossible for so tender a flower as love to flourish. It did not 
dare to breathe forth its natural sweetness to its own maker. The deepest religious sense 
that myriads have ever developed all through life has been a mortal dread of death. The 
burden of religion in the past has been— "Prepare to die." And this is preached with 
damnable iteration to those who have never yet lived, have not yet begun to live, and do 
not know how to begin to realise the glorious possibilities of living. And what is the 
spiritual result of all this fearful teaching, according to the good old faith? Is it such a 
sense of another life, and a better world that the concerns of this world are dwarfed and 
rebuked in its majestic presence? Not at all! The mass of people who are called religious 
do not want to believe in a spirit-world, save in the abstract, as a necessary article in their 
creed. They are mortally afraid of the other world. Their foremost feeling is to draw 
down the blinds against any light breaking in on the subject from another world. They 
accept a second-hand belief in it on authority as a grim necessity! It's best to believe, in 



case it does exist after all. As the old woman said— "Ah, Sir! it's best to be polite, for you 
may go to the devil." But you must know that a great deal of Belief on the subject is like 
that of the Scotch woman who was asked how she felt when the horse ran away with her 
cart. She said she "put her trust in Providence till the breechin 1 broke, and then she gave 
up." She relied upon the visible and tangible link of connection. Her Providence was the 
breechin'; when that was gone, her faith collapsed altogether. For eighteen hundred years 
they have pretended to teach men how to die. But the first duty of men who have to die is 
to learn how to live, so as to leave the world, or something in it, a little better than we 
found it. Our future life must be the natural outcome of this; the root of the whole matter 
is in this life. The founders of Historic Christianity began with an utterly false theory of 
life. They mistook the anti-physical for the spiritual; the anti-natural for the divine. Life 
was a disease, and death the only cure. Worldly blessings were curses in disguise. Belief 
would work miracles, and Doubt ensure damnation. Sense was the natural enemy of the 
soul, and had to be suppressed. The most beautiful human body was a dungeon of sin and 
death in the prison-house of a doomed world. More spirit than common manifested by the 
youngster was the very devil in revolt against authority, and had to be put into manacles; 
all nature was un-hallowed, all flesh defiled, until they had pawed it over with priestly 
rites of regeneration. The Christian scheme of salvation is a false method of dodging the 
devil at last. People will no longer believe in the lying delusion when once they learn that 
there is nothing to be got out of it; no good to be gained by it. Its success hitherto has 
depended on the appeal to selfishness. Next to fear, the chief appeal has been made to the 
desire for gain. What are considered to be the supreme expressions of Christliness in the 
Gospels too often denote a low and vulgar type of morality, or they become immoral in 
their appeal to selfishness. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." 
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Blessed are the poor who are 
content to give up this world, their's is the promise of felicity forever in the world to 
come. He that giveth to the poor is making a safe investment, because he is lending to the 
Lord. "Be ye good bankers" is one of the most significant sayings. The appeal is 
continually made to the sense of personal gain, none the less selfish because it is applied 
to the next world instead of this; on the contrary, it is increased because the promised 
gain is to be eternal. You are invited to invest your capital in a bank above that offers you 
an eternal interest, and like all bankrupt concerns deludes the gullible by promising too 
much profit. Your alms are to be given secretly, and he that seeth in secret will 
recompense you. Isn't that calculated to fix one eye on the reward with a leer of cunning 
in it, as of knowing a good thing when you do see it? One almost expects to see an image 
of the winking Christ as well as the winking virgin. Such a promise is security for at least 
a profit of cent, per cent, as the rate of eternal interest. But we shall not catch a whale by 
merely offering a sprat in that way; nor receive a hundred-fold in heaven for all that we 
may have consciously given up and forgone on earth. All that is but a survival of 
primitive teachings—the doctrines of the human childhood— an inducement for the 
individual not to be at war with society or the Church, no matter what laws of nature may 
have to be sacrificed and violated. And the fact remains to be faced that the teaching is 
not true. The meek do not inherit the earth, and are not going to. We are not forgiven 
because we are forgiving. Nature does not keep her books of account in that way. Nor are 
we allowed to cook the accounts in any such fashion. Our false teachers have been 
monstrously mistaken. The Lord of all does not carry on the business of the Universe as 
an advertised system of Bribes and Fines. We cannot outset on one line of conduct that 
which we have done on another. No death of Jesus can save us from ourselves. It was 
taught that he came to abrogate certain Jewish laws, but no Jesus can upset the natural 
law of development. What we are now is the result of what we have been, and what we 
are hereafter will be an evolution from what we are here. There is no dodging the devil of 
cause and effect. Belief can work no cataclysmal change in death for all the false teaching 



in the world. No blood of the Lamb will wash out one single internal blot; no tear of pity 
can make the stained record white. Nothing but life can work any transformation of 
character here or hereafter; death does not, cannot do it. 
268 

All such teaching is entirely false. An old Scotsman, known to me, used to say, "I like 
Paul! puir soul, I do like Paul. But I dinna like Jesus Christ; I canna like Jesus Christ; 
they are aye casting it in your teeth that he dee'd for ye; and I dinna want to be dee'd for! " 
The old fellow's manhood rose in revolt against this salvation of the savage mind by 
means of blood shed in a vicarious atonement. And he was in the right. We do not want 
to be died for, and if we did, it would be unavailing. We can no more be died for for 
another life than the law will allow us to be died for in this. 

Men like Jesus, or Jehoshua ben Pandira, the Jewish political and social reformer, or 
Bruno, or Garibaldi, or Gordon, or Garfield, are in a sense Saviours of the world. They 
set before us an illuminated image of immortal love. They pull down on themselves, and 
bear for us, the heavy burden of martyrdom, because of the wolfish selfishness of the 
world! But there is no salvation possible for us out of the mere act of their suffering. The 
only salvation is for those who range themselves on the side of these martyrs, and 
reformers, and forerunners, against the selfishness of the world, to work and change the 
crude conditions of things, which forever demand the sacrifice of the best and dearest of 
women and men. When Arnold von Winklereid took the double armful of the enemies' 
spears into his own breast, it was to make a way for his fellow-countrymen to pass on and 
widen the gap he had made—not for them to stay behind and pat him on the back, or 
merely subscribe to erect a statue to his memory. That the innocent are continually 
offered up on account of the besotted selfishness of the many is a fact. That they must 
continue to be thus offered up, until the world awakes to see this shameful sacrifice of 
others to save its own selfishness, is likewise a fact. But to erect this into a religious 
dogma, and call it the divine means of saving men, who wilfully continue and necessitate 
the conditions of society which cause and demand the martyrdom, is about the most 
immoral and damnable doctrine ever offered to humanity. Why, this doctrine of 
atonement is so unmanly, so cowardly, and currish, that, if put in its naked truth, the 
lowest rough in Whitechapel, if unperverted by orthodoxy, would be too manly to accept 
such an immoral mode of salvation. Any one who would consent to be saved at the 
expense of another, and an innocent person, ought only to escape, if at all, because he 
would not be worth the damning. Far nobler was the teaching of Captain George W. 
Pendleton of the Cleopatra, of Gloucester, Mass. His vessel was doomed and sinking fast, 
when the boat put off from the "Lord Gough" with a crew that volunteered to try and 
rescue the shipwrecked man. But with salvation in sight the American captain, by 
agreement with his men, hauled down his own flag of distress. He thought the boat could 
live in such a sea. "I said to my men, shall we let those brave fellows risk their lives to 
save ours? and they said 'No.' Then I hauled down the flag." And so they deliberately 
elected to die first. That was the gospel according to George Pendleton! But this sacrifice 
of the innocent to save the guilty—of others instead of self—is the religion of savages; it 
belongs to the most benighted conditions of the human race, and as such is doomed to die 
out of any state of true civilisation. The doom of Historic Christianity is sealed, because it 
was based upon Dogmas against which the highest instincts of the race will forever rise 
in insurrection, and Doctrines that are certain to be rejected by the growing moral sense 
of enfranchised humanity. 

From what I have learned of the interior operations of natural law, such selfishness 
defeats its own end and aim. The only way of helping oneself is by helping others. The 
only true way of receiving is by giving. The fear of being lost never yet saved the soul of 
any man. Put aside the fable, and the foolish fraud that has been founded on it, and we are 
face to face with the fact that man has no power to lose his own soul or damn himself for 



all eternity. If man be immortal by nature, continuity is not based on morality —however 

much he may retard development by limiting his life to the lower self, which may be a 

hell to think of and struggle out of hereafter. Nor is the hereafter a heaven provided on 

purpose to make up for the man-made sufferings to those who have been deluded and 

cheated and starved out of their life in this world. If it were so, then Providence would 

not only be responsible for all the mal-arrangement and the misery, through not simply 

allowing it, but for permitting it, and providing for it! Whereas we see the wrong is 

remediable, the sufferings are unnecessary, and the Christian way out of it is a misleading 

cul de sac. It is like some of the squirrel tracks in the forest with the trail ending up a tree. 

The orthodox teachings are so false that they have made the utterance of truth a 

blasphemy, and all the proclaimers of truth blasphemers! Oppose their savage theology, 

and you are denounced as an Atheist. Expose the folly of their faith, and you are an 

Infidel all round. Deny their miracles, and they damn your morals. The Christian Rock, 

not knowing what to say against me that was good enough, charged me with having 

published a volume of indecent poetry. It was a malicious lie! —a real instance of original 

sin. But that was what the ignoramus said—mistaking me, as I suppose, for Mr. 

Swinburne. There was something grand in the ancient martyrdom suffered by the heralds 

of free thought; whereas the modern reformer has to endure the prolonged torture and 

ignominy of being kicked to death by butterflies, or gnawed to death by gnats. The 

religion, founded on misunderstood and perverted mythology, has made everything 

wrong, and nothing short of an utter reversal, with all Nature for our guide and on our 

side, can set us right. Its apotheosis of sorrow, of suffering and sacrifice is entirely false, 

because these are on account of that which, like the "Fall of Man," never really 

occurred — and weeping over that which is not real is nothing more than a waste of water. 

Nature offers no evidence that man was meant to moan as a miserable animal. It is true 

that sorrow and suffering may purge and purify the life, and add a precious seeing to our 

sight. That which gives the wound may deposit the pearl. The iron of a steadfast soul has 

frequently been forged in purgatorial fires of pain. The greater the pressure from without, 

the more has it evoked and evolved the rebounding spirit from within. But that is because 

there is a power which can turn all experience to account if our life be right in its rootrelationship. 

And human life will always have its full share of sorrow and suffering. But 

nothing can be falser than to try and found a religion on sorrow and suffering, by the 

representation of this world as destined to be a vale of tears, which we are bound to grow 

anxious to get out of as soon as we recognise that we are in it. No! it is not in sorrow, but 

in joy, that we can attain the greatest unconsciousness of self, and live the larger 

objective life for others. We learn as we come to a knowledge of joy, that all sorrow and 

suffering are but the passing shadows of things mortal, and not the enduring or eternal 

reality. When no longer darkened or eclipsed by the false creed which has benighted our 

minds and totally obscured so many natural truths, we can see to the end of these 

shadows— we can overlook them— in the larger intellectual light of a truer interpretation of 

the necessities of evolution and of the human environment. If nature has one revelation of 

truth to make more plainly apparent than another, it is that her creature, man, is intended 

for health and happiness here, in this life, and not merely hereafter— on condition of 

suffering here! Pleasure is the natural accompaniment of our creative and productive 

activities, and the human likeness of life itself is conceived and imaged in delight. Health, 

physical or mental, means happiness. And everywhere the pull of the natural forces and 

elements are on the side of health, and, therefore, of consequent or premeditated 

happiness; children of the blind who never saw, being born to see, and the children of the 

deaf mutes being born to talk. That delight in life was intended by means of health and 

happiness may likewise be read in the stern punishment administered by nature for every 

breach of natural law by which we injure our health and destroy our happiness; and, lest 

the personal memory of the fact for one generation should be too short-lived, the results 



and effects of the violated law are kept before us, in some cases from generation to 
generation, not as gibbets for mere vengeance, but as sign-posts pointing to the way of 
reformation. Health is intended, and happiness is the result. It is the happy who will be 
moral; not the miserable. Now, the Christian scheme would make us miserable, in order 
that we may be moral here and happy hereafter! Whereas Nature says, be happy here and 
now, by learning the laws of health—individual, social, political, universal; by getting rid 
of all opposing falsehood, and establishing the true conditions for evolving health and 
happiness everywhere for all. 

"But," it has actually been urged in reply to me, and in arrest of judgment, "supposing the 
Christian Narrative to be entirely mythical, is not this supreme legend of divinest pity a 
beautiful and touching story?" Yes, and the more beautiful the deceit, the deeper the 
delusion. If it were only a dramatic representation, the plea would apply. But this thing 
has no meaning if it is not humanly true. The supreme legend of divine pity! That is pity 
for a fallen race on the part of a supposed deity who damned mankind for ever for the 
stealing of an apple! Why, our own unpaid magistracy —who are not over-lenient— would 
not have made more of it than a matter of fourteen days, or a month at most. Suppose you 
do touch the heart of the world upon false pretences, even to the extent of drawing a tear 
from John Morley, or getting a perfumed pastille offered up as a sweet savour in 
sacrificial smoke by Renan, where is the gain when once the falsehood is found out? As 
soon as the theological Scotsman discovers that his foundations of belief in the fall of 
man, in predestination, hell-fire, and eternal damnation are false, he naturally takes to 
whisky, and maybe for the rest of his life cannot find a brand that is quite fiery enough! 
The illusion of false ideals is always at war with reality. The Christ of the Gnostics was a 
true ideal, possible to all men. But an Historic Christ is a false ideal! Where is the sense 
of supposing a God sliding down to earth on a ladder with no steps to it, and then asking 
us to walk up minus the foothold? Also, it is in vain we set up an objective ideal for outer 
worship of that which can only be a reality within the soul. 

The god-man of the Gnostics was not a man-god, but the god or divine nature in man, 
which represented the spiritual image of the Invisible God, the formless in our human 
form; not in our human form of individual personality as an historical Christ, or Horus, or 
Buddha. That was but the symbolical presentment of the matter. The historical realisation 
was meant for all men and women, not for one man Jesus, or one female Sophia. We do 
not want to be beguiled, or to have our children deceived any longer with the most 
beautiful biography of the man in the moon, who came down too soon, and whose second 
coming has been looked for so vainly during 1800 years. We are in search and in need of 
some truer illumination than moonshine. Having discovered that these beautiful legends 
are mythical and non-human, we do not want the little ones to be misled for life by false 
teachings before ever they have learned to think. The illusion of false ideals is the 
magical glamour with which Mephistopheles seduces the soul of Faust! A woman who 
sent to the lending library for a book that would make her cry, was in search of a false 
ideal in a world brimming over with bitter reality. A minister of the gospel had been 
telling his little boy a tale that was full of human interest, and the child had been deeply 
affected by it, but looking up, with tears in his eyes, he asked,— "Is that true, papa, or is it 
only preaching?" Poor child! he had heard so much from the same source that he had 
looked upon it as being not necessarily true, but "only preaching! " That child's position is 
ours. By all we know, the story is untrue. And we have done for ever with the old wives' 
fables and romances of mythology as a foundation for religion. We have done with a 
"Word of God" that is in fatal opposition to his Truth as manifested in Nature! We have 
done with the very God himself who, when traced to his origin, is found to be chief one 
of the seven devils or elementals of mythology; and who is quite worthy of that origin in 
many aspects of his character. We have lost the power to make believe and deceive 
ourselves further in this matter! It cannot be too often repeated that the foundations of the 



Christian faith were laid in falsehood and ignorance. The Fall of man in the beginning 
was not a fact, and consequently there could be no curse. It is but a fable misinterpreted; 
and the redemption of the New Testament is based upon a fable in the Old. There is no 
virtue nor efficacy in a vicarious atonement, and no priesthood ever had or will have the 
power to forgive sin, to break the sequence between cause and effect, or to evade the 
Nemesis of Natural law. When the great delusion comes to an end its true epitaph would 
be,~"This was a fraud founded on a fable." Meanwhile, the Church that continues to put 
forth this scheme of salvation and impose it on the public at the expense of the nation 
(some eight or ten millions annually!) ought not only to be disestablished and 
disendowed, it ought to be prosecuted for obtaining money on demonstrably false 
pretences! 

We are often told that our civilisation is infinitely indebted to Christianity; but on the 
other hand it could be shown that Christianity has been infinitely indebted to civilisation, 
because it became the adopted religion, the official religion, of the races that happened to 
be in the swim and current of European progress. Indeed, our European progress has been 
in exact proportion as the civil law and pre-extant common law have got the upper hand 
of the ecclesiastical usurpation. What did Christianity do for Italy, its birthplace? If it was 
such a renovator of the ancient worn-out world, why did it not renew old Rome when its 
salvation had been adopted? What did it do for Greece? for Egypt? for the Mexicans? for 
any of the ancient races or civilisations? As Jerrold said truly, "We owe much to the 
Jews," but what do the Jews owe to Christianity? Its success has been as a parasite fed on 
the life of the recent races. The line of renewal was that of the races, whereas all the good 
results have been claimed for the Christian Creed. Thackeray was once attracted to an 
elderly gentleman at table who was in the habit of maintaining that everything really 
good or great in modern literature came directly or indirectly from Pindar. "At all 
events," said one of the guests, "Pindar did not write 'Vanity Fair'!" "Yes, sir," said the 
old gentleman with his customary assurance, "Yes, sir, he did; in the highest and noblest 
sense, Pindar did write 'Vanity Fair'! " In like manner it has been the custom to label every 
virtue as Christian that had been evolved as human, ages and ages before our own era, at 
which time every good thing was re-dated, christened, and re-named, as if it were the 
result of an historical Christ! Indeed, one expects to hear of the elements of pure air, fresh 
water, and clear sunlight being christened under this name, in the same way that the wellknown 
healing by means of Mental Medicine, which was practised by the pre-Christian 
races, has been designated "Christian Healing." We shall probably have Christian Lunacy 
or Christian Idiocy! Yet the fact remains that the direst, bloodiest enemies of the human 
race in Europe have been the most besotted supporters of the doctrines called Christian. 
On the other hand if it were possible to eliminate from the factors in European 
civilisation the direct worth and hereditary influence of those free-thinkers who have not 
accepted the Historical Christian creed, what, think you, would remain of the progress 
that was made during many centuries? The only hold the system has ever obtained on the 
most intellectual of men has been the hold of the rack! the death-grip of the stake! and the 
embracing fires of martyrdom! Has it ever struck you how little the great minds of the 
past—the Shakspeares and Goethes, those "serene creators of immortal things"— troubled 
themselves about Christianity? How loftily they tower and overtook it. What preacher 
from the pulpit ever thinks of arraigning the present social conditions as based on the 
rights of the stronger and the wrongs of the weaker? On the contrary, it has been accepted 
as a divine arrangement that suffering humanity was the cheapest thing— with a neverending 
supply— for manuring the soil, for the greasing of wheels, for coining money out 
of. They never question whether this is the right basis of the national life. They rejoice in 
the scriptural assurance that the poor ye have always with you, on purpose to keep down 
the price of labour; or, we may add, keep up the supply of children to the brothels of the 
rich, at the lowest possible figure! Christian civilisation to-day is compatible with such a 



state of Society as was recently revealed by the Pall Mall Gazette. We have been assured 
that the one great sacrifice of the Son of God did put an end to individual human 
sacrifice! But Christianity has been compatible with the masses of the people of Europe 
being offered up for ever in one great sacrifice. And what matters the mode, if you are 
sacrificed? 

Honey and milk are sacrifice to thee, 
Kind Hermes, inexpensive Deity! 
But Heracles demands a lamb each day, 
For keeping, as he says, the wolves away. 
What matters it, meek browsers of the sod, 
Whether a wolf devour you or a God? 

The pretended stewards of the mysteries of God have left it for the future to create the 
very consciousness of wrong in a myriad ways, that their religion has never yet taken into 
account. As the dogs of Dives, they have now and again given a lick to the sores of 
Lazarus, and promised him the healing hereafter. But when have they banded together 
and fought against the social system that dooms the many to poverty—that creates 
Lazarus as well as his sores? 

When they have made large fortunes, and grown very rich, and death is drawing near, 
some Christians do wax charitable and grow liberal of alms. They do build large and 
comfortable houses for broken-down paupers to die in; they do supply hospitals for the 
refuge of those who are ailing and afflicted. But a good deal of the money has been 
donated for hell-fire insurance, and perhaps these paupers were left all through their 
working-life to pig together in hovels and slums, the breeding-places of pestilence, which 
were sure to create the diseases you treat so generously when too late. They starved, and 
suffered, and sickened, that wealth might accumulate for others! Peabody bequests are all 
very well in their way; but if the Peabody wealth had been spread in preventing the 
poverty and crime of the nation, instead of being wrung out of labour, and accumulating 
to cause these evils, how much better and more blessed would have been the prevention 
than the late attempt to cure, or rather to help bolster up a state of things which is relief of 
its running sores! We do not want to become paupers, as we must ever be if we are to be 
forever pauperised. On reading lately that Belgravia had turned out to carry its broken 
victuals round in scrap-carts to the starving poor, I declare it struck a glow of shame into 
my face as if I had received the insult of a blow, to think of the unnecessary necessity! 
You need not wonder if the poor should damn the charity that is offered to them in the 
name of religion, as a bribe for them not to ask for justice; or that they should turn a deaf 
ear to all talk about the bread of heaven when they lack the bread of earth; or the milk of 
human kindness when their babes are perishing for lack of a little morning-milk from the 
cow! It is here that Christianity, after 1800 years, is an utter failure, and these are some of 
the things the Coming religion must go to the root of to be of any use for this world or 
any other. I know a poor old man in England who, for 40 years, worked for one firm and 
its three generations of proprietors. He began at a wage of 16s. per week, and worked his 
way, as he grew older and older, and many necessaries of life grew dearer and dearer, 
down to six shillings a week, and still he kept on working, and would not give up. At six 
shillings a week he broke a limb, and left work at last, being pensioned off by the firm 
with a four-penny piece! I know whereof I speak, for that man was my father. At the 
same time, as you are well aware, during those 40 years any possessor of capital might 
have put it out to usury, and without lifting a finger himself it would have been 
quadrupled. Such are two of our naturalised laws of capital and labour. The one is the 
complement of the other; you cannot have the one without the other, and any religion that 
is not directed to help revolutionise this state of society is damned already, under 



whatsoever name! 

We never can attain the stature of true manhood, or be man, so long as we will un-man 
ourselves by taking so unmanly an advantage as we do of our more ignorant and hitherto 
helpless fellow-men. No one class of men can hold another with their faces to the ground, 
or noses to the grindstone, without also stooping over them in a manner that for ever 
hinders from attaining the perfect stature of genuine manhood. The degradation, though 
different, is shared in common! And, mark you, these things are done as effectually by 
aid of our social system, and laws of supply and demand, as if one man stood over 
another with the whip of the slave-driver, or sword of the executioner, in his hand. The 
wrong and the responsibility, the cruelty and the cowardliness are none the less because 
they are warranted by custom, sustained by legal enactments, and defended by the press. 
After the recent utterances of the Archbishop of York, who spoke of our continual 
doubling of the pile of the rich by halving the wages of the poor, we shall doubtless hear 
more from the echoists. But the redemption preached for 1800 years has failed to save the 
world, and it must now give way for other workers with other methods, applied to such 
matters as the problems of poverty, the distribution of wealth, and the ownership of land. 
In vain will they claim and Christen every good work of Co-operation, Communism, or 
Socialism, as Christian by name. The "good Lord Jesus" as an objective saviour and 
historical Christ has "had his day." Our science, applied to civilisation, will part company 
more and more with the found-out fraud, and will help to carry it no further! Its triumphs 
will not be made or allowed to support the Christian delusion in the future any more than 
in the past. And what is the chief cause of this novel interest in the churches on behalf of 
the poor to-day? Is it not fear that the new electorate will reject the orthodox system, and 
that their political influence will prove fatal to the Church? 

And now the question is being asked,-- What is going to take the place of the cast-out 
faith? for it is already cast out from the minds of the men who will assuredly mould the 
freer thought of the future. It is not going to be re-established by law; nor by the blood 
and fire of the salvation army—nor by presenting our cast-off clothes to the aborigines! 
Nor by teaching blind Chinamen to read the Bible. Not going to be re-established even 
though more Bibles have been printed during the last ten years than in all the preceding 
centuries. It is being rejected at home faster than you can give it away abroad! We have 
had our religion based on belief—on belief in a God who cared an infinite deal more for a 
few apples than for the eternal damnation of myriads of immortal souls— a God who 
played fast and loose with the laws of his own nature and creation! A creed based on the 
divine truth of every lie that science has exploded— a belief that was in deadly opposition 
to all and every truth that has been established. A "good old faith" which is a fraud— so far 
as being saved by it goes— founded upon a legend misinterpreted. And at last the old 
grounds of belief are breaking up rapidly; no matter what fresh efforts may be made to 
deceive, delude, and secure the ignorant, the infants or the aborigines. The orthodox 
creed is doomed to reversal, even as a dish is wiped clean, and turned upside down. The 
foundations of the false, cruel, and gory faith are all afloat. It was built as the Russians 
reared their palace on the frozen river Neva, and the great thaw has come suddenly upon 
them; the ominous sounds of the final break-up are in their ears; their anchorage and 
place of trust is crumbling before their eyes. For they had built on the very things (or 
condition of things) which had sealed up the running springs, and stayed the stream of 
progress in its course. They have arrested for the purpose of resting. And here is the hint 
of Science, of Nature, of Spiritualism, of Theosophy, of Freethought, in every form— that 
they must move on, and get out of the way, or be moved off for ever. The orthodox 
religion has been dying in proportion as it lost the power to persecute! People now 
inquire, "what next?" As did the tad-pole when his tail dropped off. What next? as if we 
were going to straightway put forth a new tail! But that is not the way of Nature. She 
works by transformation, not by repetition; and her changes imply growth, as the outcome 



of a new life. It is not possible for us to swap creeds or formulate a new religion. 
Religion is not a set of precepts, or a mode of worship. It is not a creed that counts in the 
eternal court. It is not what we believe or profess, but what we are when stripped bare in 
the balance. Nothing avails but the life lived. Our past deeds must and will make our 
future state! Some people seem to think that Spiritualism is about to give us a new tail, or 
at least to put a firmer tag on the old limp stay-lace of Christianity, to bind us up anew 
with a fresh support! They are wondering when the Spiritualists are going to open their 
Sunday shop for the purposes of prayer and praise. But I doubt whether that mode of 
procedure will ever be repeated in this world. When Sydney Smith saw his child tenderly 
stroking the hard shell of a tortoise to please the tortoise, he said, "you might just as well 
stroke the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral with the idea of pleasing the Dean and Chapter." 
So when we see people crowding together to worship and praise and flatter the Lord, as if 
they fancied they could gratify his self-esteem, or excite his benevolence, or keep his 
destructiveness quiet, it reminds me irresistibly of the child's stroking the tortoise to 
please it. The offering of words of praise which people make to show their love of God is 
of no more value than the cheap oblations of sham bank-notes which the Chinese burn to 
any amount as a sacrifice to their deities! They offer money by millions in that way. The 
only worthy way of showing love to God is in working for humanity. That is the practical 
test. The Lord does not want your long and loud laudations or offerings of false money! 
Hermes says "there can be no religion more true or just than to know the things that are." 
We have had a religion without knowledge, and the Coming religion must be founded on 
knowledge. And it must be good for this world as its warrant for being good for any 
other. In knowledge only can we find a common ground of agreement. That which is 
based upon knowledge, need not be the subject of everlasting diversity and contention 
amongst innumerable sects. We need a first-hand acquaintanceship with the facts of 
Nature—not limiting Nature, however, to the little we may know of it at present. Of 
course, mere facts are not everything. No number of separate vertebral joints will supply 
a man with a backbone. We have to collect the various joints in our scattered facts 
derived from a closer acquaintanceship with, and truer interpretation of Nature, but life 
alone can produce the unity and cohesion that will constitute a back-bone. Amongst these 
facts we naturally assign a foremost place to those of Spiritualistic phenomena, which the 
orthodox as good as prohibit to their followers in favour of theoretical teachings. 
Whereas we need a first-hand acquaintanceship here, if anywhere. Present facts are worth 
all the teachings of the past: by means of these we can test them. The facts in nature are 
the sole ground to go upon for another life, just as they are for this; facts that are 
scientific because they are verifiable to-day as in the past. We claim that the inner vision 
or second sight is a fact in nature. Pre-vision is a fact in nature. The spiritual apparition is, 
and always has been, a fact in nature. But a physical resurrection from the dead is not a 
fact in nature, and here the Aborigines are far ahead of the orthodox Christian world in a 
practical knowledge of these phenomena on which the demonstration of our continuity is 
based. The naturalist Kircher estimated the number of intellectual proofs of the existence 
of God at 6561. A Spiritualist considers one actual proof of objective spiritual 
manifestation as worth them all. Better is one real spirit communication than a divinity 
put together in 6561 pieces; it is a fact that for the first time makes those figures live!— or 
gives a foothold for taking the first step in the unknown. As evidence of a future life, one 
single proof in spiritual manifestation is worth the hear-say revelation of the world. The 
time has not yet come for any thinker to set forth the reign of law and order in this 
obscure domain of Nature which, for lack of another name, we call "Spiritual," or neonatural; 
but Spiritualism is none the less real because orthodox physical science has not 
yet established it as one of its truths. A sufficient number of competent observers and 
credible witnesses testify to the occurrence and recurrence of certain phenomenal 
manifestations, which go to prove that we have found the sole bridge in nature that 



crosses the unfathomable gulf between the dead and the not-dead; the organic and the 
inorganic—between mind and matter—which Science has strenuously sought elsewhere, 
but never yet found. A million of us know that the cable is laid between the two worlds, 
and the messages prove that there are intelligent operators at the other end of it, who can 
send us messages in human language. We know that the so-called dead are living still, 
however difficult it may be, and is, though not impossible, to establish their personal 
identity! We know they can communicate with us and we with them, objectively as well 
as subjectively, and that the objective phenomena enable us to comprehend the true 
nature of the subjective— to accept and to found upon it inferentially We know they can 
establish a rapport with us more rare and potent than we can with each other in the body. 
Some of us have felt and handled and heard that which was invisible to our sight, in the 
presence of those who could see and describe the forms and motions of that (or of those) 
which we only felt and heard. And so we can put our evidence together, and draw the 
necessary inference. Buckle has said: "The doctrine of immortality is the doctrine of 
doctrines. A truth compared with which it is indifferent whether anything else be true! " 
Anyway, Spiritualism alone offers the means of establishing it as a fact. Spiritualism 
alone offers a scientific basis for a doctrine of immortality! The Phenomenal Spiritualist 
stands level-footed on the only ground of fact that is, or ever has been, offered by Nature 
for human foothold in the Unseen. Spiritualism alone reveals a bridge on which we can 
get any bit of actual foothold for crossing the gulf of death. The Spiritualist makes 
connection between the two worlds, and runs his trains of thought right through! Indeed, 
the two worlds are but one for him— they are not two, any more than the railway runs 
through another world by night. It is but one world after all, with two aspects. The 
daylight part of it is but half-revealed by day, and the dark side is but half-concealed by 
night. The phenomena called Spiritualistic furnish us with a means of interrogating 
Nature in such a way that it is sure to revolutionise all our mental science— psychology, 
philosophy, metaphysic, and theosophy These phenomena show us that we have other 
and profounder facts to go upon than those hitherto included in our data. Realistic 
phenomena, not merely idealistic— facts in place of faith. Spiritualism opens up to our 
vision a Power that operates upon us, and through us, and makes use of us whether we 
will or no,— whether we are conscious of its presence or not— our recognition being 
unnecessary to its existence or operations. Spiritualism shows us how the soul of man 
may be fed with a sustenance drawn from the well of life within us, that is penetrated and 
replenished from eternal springs. And we maintain that these phenomena, called 
Spiritualistic (which have no relationship to the miracles of misinterpreted mythology), 
and these alone, do actually demonstrate the natural nexus for the continuity of life, and 
the next step upward in human evolution. 

Some of our Free-thought Secularist friends seem to suffer from rabies on the subject of 
a future existence. The very idea of it drives them frantic; and that which is as the water 
of life to others only serves to aggravate their symptoms, and make them rage more 
furiously. The editor of the Melbourne Liberator says it is a swindle of the worst 
description to keep up the farce of a future life. Now, I think we know that there are facts 
in Nature which warrant the inference of another life; and simply as facts I would have 
them made known. Without the facts we cannot know the truth! Anyway, there is no 
warrant for those who do not know that man has a soul to dogmatise and teach that men 
have no souls, or that there is no future life. Those who do not know can have no right to 
pretend to know, and such pretensions of the negational dogmatists constitute a positive 
imposture. Whosoever owns the head, you cannot quite bring a knowledge of all things 
pertaining to the ultimate reality under one hat. The Agnostics show more modesty. 
Professor Huxley says: "Agnosticism means that a man shall not say he knows or 
believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know and believe! " So 
say we. Only we claim to have scientific grounds for knowing. A crude materialistic 



interpretation of the Universe bottoms nothing. There is eternal motion; there is eternal 
life. There is a being beyond appearance. There is a Consciousness that co-ordinates the 
means to attain the ends, with power to turn to account all that occurs in the sphere of socalled 
human Free-Will. There is Intelligence involved in all that is intelligible. All who 
break the laws of nature do so under penalty of punishment. They learn sooner or later 
that there is a law-maker, whose ministers and agencies will dog the law-breaker; 
however we may deny the law-maker, we cannot evade the law! False Spiritualism 
merely begets a craze after another life. But a true Spiritualism will turn our attention to 
this life, and help on the work of this world. Spiritualism enables us to call in the new 
world in our rectification and adjustment of the wrong done in the old—somewhat like 
calling in troops from the new world of the Colonies to fight the battle of England in the 
old. It has come to quicken a keener conscience in the human race; set up a loftier ideal 
of life and a nobler standard of appeal than fear of punishment and hope of reward. For 
me, Spiritualism means an aid in the certain overthrow of all false dogmas and lying 
legends, which have been imposed upon men, and are still imposed upon the children, in 
the name of God. Science has been driving in its splitting wedge with a mighty ripping 
and rending of the ancient beliefs. But with Spiritualism the wedge is alive, and takes 
root just as the seed of the Indian Bo-tree is so vital that when it is sown singly in the 
cleft of some lofty tower or fortress, and a drop of moisture and a smile of sunshine have 
caused it to quicken, it will shoot out and lay hold of the stone with its feelers and strike 
root to make its way down the walls to the earth outside, and laying hold of this it gathers 
strength and grows mightily, and sends back such force to its birth-place that the walls 
are rent, and the temporary resting-place betwixt earth and heaven is shattered in favour 
of the newer rootage and firmer foothold upon this more nutritious and life-giving 
ground. So will Spiritualism lay hold of the larger substance of reality, and inevitably 
rend the barren stone walls of the Establishments into fragments, minute enough to be 
ground down into the new fresh soil in which it is destined to flourish and bear fruit in the 
freer, larger, loftier life of a nobler human race! Spiritualism will help to break up the 
sacerdotal ring of priestcraft that has hemmed the people round with terrors and strangled 
souls with fear. It is rapidly abolishing the tyranny of death, and restoring freedom for 
life to those whose whole living had been turned into one long dread of death. 
Spiritualism will have done a great work, if only by destroying that craven dread of dying 
which has been instilled into us from before birth; the child in embryo having been made 
to feel and embody the mother's shudderings at the frightful language used by the 
torturers of souls, who fulminate their cruel formulas from the pulpit. If it sets us free to 
do our own thinking as rational men and women, who have so long and so profoundly 
suffered from the pretensions of the sacerdotalists, who continue to peddle, in the name 
of God, a system of delusion, the foundations of which are to be discovered at last in 
misinterpreted mythology; against which system of false teaching I, for one, am at war to 
the death, with any and every weapon I can lay hands on, including this most potent 
weapon—the sword of Spiritualism. Spiritualism is sure to be terribly iconoclastic! It 
means a new light of revelation in the world from the old eternal source. And you cannot 
have new light let in without seeing many old acquaintances with a new face. Many 
aspects of things will change; and some things that we mistook for live faces will turn 
into the sheerest masks of mockery, and whiten with the sweat of dissolution running 
down them. Spiritualism, as I interpret it, means a new life in the world, and new life is 
not brought forth without pain and parting, and the sheddings of old decay. New ideas are 
not born in the mind without the pangs of parturition; and to get rid of our old ingrained 
errors of false teaching is like having to tear up by the root the snags of one's own teeth 
with our own hand. But, by our own hand and will, this has to be done, for nothing else 
can do it. New light and new life, however, do not come to impoverish, they come to 
enrich, and no harm can befall the nature of that which is eternally true. It is only 



falsehood that fears or needs to fear the transfiguring touch of light; that must needs 
shrink and shrink until it shrivels away. Spiritualism will prove a mighty iconoclast, but 
the fetishes and idols it destroys will yield up their concealed treasures of innermost truth, 
as did the statue that was destroyed by Mahmoud, the image-breaker. The priestly 
defenders offered him an enormous sum to spare their God, but he resisted the bribe and 
smote mightily with his iron mace. Down fell the image, and as it broke there rolled out 
of it a river of pent-up wealth, which had been hoarded and hidden within. 
Evolution, for which no place has been left in the Christian system of thought, is of itself 
quite capable of being the death of that system; but Spiritualism will undermine it, and 
dig its grave, and plant it with another nobler life. Spiritualism has already proved itself 
to be the greatest solvent of ancient dogmas ever known. It has acted, and is acting, like 
Hannibal's vinegar on the Alps, by crumbling the most stupendous obstacles of mental 
progress. The Spiritualistic religion is going to conquer because it is not afraid of any 
new facts that may be dug out of the earth, or drawn down from the heavens. It is bound 
to conquer, because with it free-thinking is no longer on the side of negation. Our old 
Free-thinkers were brave men who drew a new breath of freer life through the enlarging 
lungs of the world, by daring to think freely—braver men than our Spiritualists are, who 
are sadly in need of a fiery course of persecution to test the metal of their manhood. But 
on the old material plane they soon came to where their foothold ceased, and they could 
get no further. The freer thought of the Spiritualist gives him arms to swim the sea, and 
wings to mount the air, when he comes to where the earth ends,— and to the Materialist 
there seemed no more solid ground. I have warrant for saying that the only form of Freethought 
that is feared as deadly by the Church of Rome is Spiritualistic, which cuts the 
ground from under it in relation to a future life. We say to them, Call it a superstition if 
you please. Our superstition will be the death of yours. And whenever or whenever they 
come fairly to the grapple we shall see, and our enemies will feel, how the old bones will 
crackle and crumble in the grip of its crushing power. Spiritualism, as I apprehend it, is 
going to be a mighty agent in carrying on the work of this world, in producing loftier 
souls for the life of another world, of which it gives us glimpses on the way. Let me tell 
you that this despised Spiritualism will put a light into the one hand and a sword into the 
other, that have to be flashed in on many dark places, and through many a dungeongrating 
of human kind, in spite of the birds of night that may hoot at the light, and 
blaspheme against its brilliance. 

There is a cry of womankind now going up in search of God! Sometimes accompanied 
with a clasping of hands— at other times with the clenched fist— and it behooves all men to 
know what it does really and rightly mean. It may be found to imply more than "woman 
suffrage," it may signify woman suffering. "Suffering from what?" do you reply. "Do we 
not keep her, and clothe her, and are we not prohibited, or were under the good old 
English law, from beating her with a stick that is thicker than your middle finger?" It may 
be that the brute ideal of the savage is getting to be a worn-out type here as elsewhere, 
and that there is a desire for a more refined and intellectual form of manhood in the 
intimacy of married life! So far from Woman having been the cause of any pretended Fall 
of man, she has been the true Saviour of humanity; or rather, the main instrument for 
saving because more open to the Divine influence, which I hold to be for ever working to 
prevent the propagation of man's worser moods, and the personification of his baser self. 
Often has she tried to hinder man when he was devilishly bent on defacing the coming 
image of the divine! And this alone, with her back to the wall, in places where there was 
no law on her side. How many idiots, think you, are born into the world through drunken 
fathers? Idiocy is an arrested development. Drunkenness is also an arrest of the soul in its 
brain action, which means that the idiot child is often a tiny, pitiful image of the father 
who was in a state of moral idiocy. The spiritual life was arrested; and there is as great a 
deficiency of soul as there is of blood in the brain when you swoon. It is a moral swoon 



made visible and permanent in a hidden effigy of Death-in-life. Lucky if the paralysis be 
so complete that a great criminal is not let loose on the world in active, instead of 
helpless, idiocy. I only dare hint at the things which are done in the world to the 
knowledge of women, and you need not wonder if now and again there rises the shrill, 
protesting shriek. 

Some of my readers may have seen specimens in Greek and Italian art of what man has 
done to gratify the lust of the eye that he might perpetuate the lusts of the soul, and gloat 
over his own moral deformity, immortalised by the utmost cunning wherewith art could 
animate the most precious forms of inanimate nature. He has set the image of his own 
corruption in the shining mirror of a stainless jewel, and figured forth his moral deformity 
in the lustre of a gem—think of giving the worst kind of human disease to a gem! He has 
cut the devil of his beastlier self in the diamond, enshrined the libidinous satyr, tonguel oiling 
and leering from a sapphire's azure heaven, made the innocent emerald flush the 
face with the reflection of what was enacted in its green coolness, called up spirits of all 
uncleanness in the purity of a crystal. All this was very bad—very horrible— this 
corruption of art for the delectation of the beast with a taste in man! But what was such 
degradation at its wantonest and worst compared with that of a drunken man— no matter 
with which passion he may be aflame— furiously stamping his own hideous face, and the 
features of his vice, on that form of humanity which he so darkens and defiles as to wellnigh 
blast or blot out of it the image of God or man altogether! These jewels of life, these 
creations of love, to be thus brutally defaced in such a cruel way! It is horrible, most 
horrible! Enough to make all womankind, all motherhood, nay, all manhood, rise in 
revolt against it, and sicken, and spew it out. If men go reeling to the marriage-bed, 
reeking with the foul effluvia of drink, gross with gluttony, and stained through and 
through with moral disease, if the children are made from the scum of bad blood into an 
outer likeness of the inner corruption, what can we expect the men and women to be? If 
you held a tiny little bird's egg in your hand, how tenderly would you touch it! how 
protectingly would you fence it round and shield it from all danger! and here is an 
immortal soul in embryo, susceptible to every influence of the father, every feeling of the 
mother, looking with all its life to them for its environing conditions! Here then, instead 
of the ancient damnation of the flesh we need a religion of the body as well as of the soul, 
and a gospel of human physics. Hitherto the utmost that has been aimed at scientifically 
has been a better breed of horses or cattle; we ought to be at least as careful in the 
bringing forth of human beings. Make the tree good and its fruit will be good (barring 
certain "throws back" or "sports" of nature). The work has to be done from the root, and 
not by late trying to graft the good on a bad stock. Remember that life comes into the 
world according to conditions, and the first of these conditions are those of the married 
life. Human embryology has now to be studied religiously in the light of evolution. If I 
were a woman I doubt whether I should consider a smoker, or chewer of tobacco, quite 
good enough to father my children! The final effect— the supposed beneficial effect— of 
nicotine is to arrest the decay of matter that ought to be sloughed off in order that it may 
be renewed. No smoker is so live a man, all round, as he ought to be, or might be; and 
you can study them in all the various stages and degrees of dreaming, decaying, dying, 
poisoning the springs of future life, or bringing death into the world. 
The truth is, that woman at her best and noblest must be monarch of the marriage-bed. 
We must begin in the creatory if we are to benefit the race, and the woman has got to 
rescue and take possession of herself, and consciously assume all the responsibilities of 
maternity, on behalf of the children. No woman has any right to part with the absolute 
ownership of her own body, but she has the right to be protected against all forms of 
brute force. No woman has any business to marry anything that is less than a man. No 
woman has any right to marry any man who will sow the seeds of hereditary disease in 
her darlings. Not for all the money in the world! No woman has any right, according to 



the highest law, to bear a child to a man she does not love. No mother has any right to 
allow her innocent little ones to be injured mentally for life by orthodox drugs and false 
nostrums of salvation that are vended from the pulpit by pious impostors. These—and 
other things as vital—will become practical so soon as womankind co-operate and insist 
that they shall be practised. "Women, obey your husbands," is a text that, when wrongly 
applied, has wrought as much human misery as that other relic of barbarism, "Spare the 
rod and spoil the child!" Why, the great and sole incentive with the mass of male 
hypocrites who support the Churches is because orthodox Christianity encourages the 
subjection of women, and helps to make them better— that is more spiritless— household 
slaves. They do not believe for themselves, but they think anything good enough for their 
wives and daughters to believe. 

"You cannot serve two masters, saith the Word," 
But Satan nudges them and whispers "Gammon;" 
"You lend your Wives and Daughters to the Lord, 
You give yourselves to love and worship Mammon." 

Our women and children are bound to break away from this system of fettered thought. If 
I could stand where stood the cock when all the world could here him crow, my cry 
would be to the wives and mothers on behalf of the children. The women are bound to 
rescue the children, and to head their Exodus from the bondage of orthodoxy, even if the 
men are too unmanly— too cowardly to help them. No doubt, one real crux is, What are 
we going to teach the children? And here there is so much to be done and lived by the 
parents in presence of the children, and so little to be said! The life we live with them 
every day is the teaching that tells; and not the precepts uttered weekly that are 
continually belied by our own daily practices. Give the children a knowledge of natural 
law, especially in that domain of physical nature which has hitherto been tabooed. If we 
break a natural law we suffer pain in consequence, no matter whether we knew the law or 
not. This result is not an accident, because it always happens, and is obviously intended 
to happen. Punishments are not to be avoided by ignorance of effects; they can only be 
warded off by a knowledge of causes. Therefore nothing but knowledge can help them. 
Teach the children to become the soldiers of duty instead of the slaves of selfish desire. 
Show them how the sins against self reappear in the lives of others. Teach them to think 
of those others as the means of getting out of self. Teach them how the laws of nature 
work by heredity. How often has the apparently pious, God-fearing parent produced a 
child that seemed to the outside world the very opposite of himself, as if the devil had 
dropped an egg in the good man's nest. And yet this Satan of a son was but the nature of 
the saintly father turned inside out— only an exposure of that which had been hidden for a 
time beneath the cloak of hypocrisy; because in the end nature is honest, and will out 
with it. Children have ears like the very spies of nature herself; eyes that penetrate all 
subterfuge and pretence; and a sense of justice that, if allowed fair-play, would 
straightway wreck the orthodox gospel. Guide the curiosity of the little ones whilst it is 
yet innocent, and give them all necessary knowledge fresh and sweet from the lips of the 
mother and father, Mr. Ruskin notwithstanding. Let the children be well grounded in the 
doctrine of development, without which we cannot begin to think coherently. Give them 
the best material, the soundest method; let the spirit-world have a chance as a living 
influence on them, and then let them do the rest. Never forget that the faculty for seeing 
is worth all that is to be seen. It is good to set before the youngsters the loftiest and 
noblest ideals— not those that are mythical and non-natural, but those that have been lived 
in human reality. The best ideal of all has to be portrayed by the parents in the realities of 
life at home. The teaching that goes deepest will be indirect, and the truth will tell most 
on them when it is overheard. When you are not watching, and the children are— that is 



when the lessons are learned for life. 

Possibly my Coming Religion may suggest a coming revolution? I should not wonder if it 
does. Anyway, we mean to do our own thinking, and to have absolute freedom of thought 
and expression. We mean to rescue our Sunday from the sacerdotal ring. But we do not 
mean that the day of rest and recreation shall fall into the hands of the capitalists. We 
mean to try and rescue this world from the clutches of those who profess to have the keys 
and the keeping of the other—they who hold up the other world in front of that beast of 
burden, the producer, as a decoying lure, like the bunch of carrots before the donkey's 
nose, in order that the suggestion of plenty in paradise may induce him to forego his 
common right to grazing-ground on earth. We mean to have a day of reckoning with the 
unjust stewards of the earth. We mean to have the national property restored to the 
people, which the churches and other bodies have withheld from the people. We mean 
that the land, with its inalienable right of living, its mineral wealth below the soil and its 
waters above, shall be open to all. We mean to have our banking done by the State, and 
our railways worked for the benefit of the whole people. We mean to temper the terror of 
rampant individualism with the principles of co-operation. We mean to show that the 
wages' system is a relic of barbarism and social serfdom. That under it labour must 
remain a slave in the prison-house of property. We mean for woman to have perfect 
equality with man, social, religious, and political, and her fair share in that equity which 
is of no sex. We mean also that the same standard of morality shall apply to the woman 
as to the man. In short, we intend that the redress of wrongs and the righting of 
inequalities, which can only be rectified in this world, shall not be put off and postponed 
to any future stage of existence. The religion of the future has got to include not only 
Spiritualism, but the salvation of humanity for this life—any other may be left to follow 
hereafter. It has to be a sincerity of life, in place of pretended belief. A religion of 
science, in place of superstition. Of joy, instead of sorrow. Of man's Ascent, instead of 
his Fall. 

A religion of fact in the present, and not of mere faith for the future. 
A religion in which the temple reared to God will be in human form, instead of being 
built of brick or stone. 

A religion of work, rather than worship; and, in place of the deathly creeds, with all their 
hungry parasites of prey. 
A religion of life— life actual, life here, life now, as well as the promise of life everlasting!